LPA No. 810 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 810 of 2010 Date of Decision 29.07.2010 Shamsher Singh -----Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kohal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. Kumar, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 08.01.2010 delivered by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 7869 of 1990. The appellant had sought appointment on the post of Junior Engineer and had applied in response to the advertisement issued on 22.01.1988. He is an ex-serviceman and has claimed the appointment under the reserved category of Ex-serviceman. He failed to succeed in obtaining an appointment as Junior Engineer. By filing the aforesaid petition in 1990 he challenged the selection of private respondents and sought his own selection and appointment. Learned Single Judge adopted the approach of settlement of right by efflux of time. The selection made in the year 1989, which is more than 20 years ago. It has been conceded even otherwise that the appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Army in the year 1990. He is likely to retire in the year 2010. Before the learned Single Judge he expressed his desire to prosecute the writ petition so as to assume the job as Junior Engineer and LPA No. 810 of 2010 -2- to join after retirement from army. The learned Single Judge took the view that it was not possible to grant employment to the appellant at this belated stage because private respondents must have earned promotions in the meantime on the basis of their length of service. Following a practical approach rather than purely legalistic one, learned Single Judge has found that the claim of the appellant at this belated stage has been rendered infructuous, especially when he had served army since 1990. Accordingly, the right of the appellant by efflux of time has been rendered infructuous. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that no interference in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge would be warranted. The appellant might have lost right to work on a civil post, but he has already worked for 20 years on an equivalent post in the Army. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. As a sequel to the above discussions, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE July 29, 2010 Atul