CWP No. 7512 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7512 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 19, 2009 Banveer Singh Suhag ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.P.Sharma, DAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner was applicant for the post of Laboratory Technician. The selection process was carried out by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. As per the petitioner the Commission recommended the name of another person who was actually ineligible while keeping the petitioner at serial No.1 of the waiting list. Ultimately, after a protracted legal battle the claim of appointment raised by that person was rejected by this Court and thereafter the petitioner was appointed in the year 2003. By this writ petition the petitioner is claiming the benefit of back dated CWP No. 7512 of 2009 2 appointment. I find that all allegations regarding wrong doing have been made against the Haryana Staff Selection Commission ( who incidentally is not even a party). No fault has been attributed to the respondent No.1-State of Haryana in causing any delay in the appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the fact remains that the appointment of the petitioner was delayed even though the petitioner was entitled to be appointed and that delay has prejudicially effected the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of appointment from the date when the other applicants were appointed viz. February, 1999. In my opinion the claim is fallacious. For any such claim to succeed it has to be shown that the respondents are guilty of any act of omission or commission. Here as per the case of the petitioner the fault lay at the door of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. In the result no relief can be claimed against respondents No.1 to 3. This writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 19, 2009 sunita