LPA No.346 of 1998 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.346 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.02.2010 Sehdev and another ............Appellants Versus Union of India and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. ALOK SINGH, J. 1. Writ petitioners/appellants are assailing the order dated 30.6.1998 passed by learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing the writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioners were working as Peons on daily wages in the Regional Office, Central Board of Secondary Education, Chandigarh. After about two years on 26.11.1993, their services were dispensed with. By way of the writ petition, the LPA No.346 of 1998 (O&M) -2- prayer was made that the order terminating their service be set aside and the respondents be directed to take them back in service and appoint them on regular basis in pursuance to the interview held on 09.08.1993. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that names of the petitioners were not sponsored by Employment Exchange, hence, they were not entitled for regular appointment in terms of the circular letter dated 7.5.1985. Learned Counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna, District, A.P. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 216 has argued that restricting the selection only to the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange is not proper rather in addition to requisitioning the names from employment exchange, names should also be called for by publication in newspapers, having wide circulation, and by other mode. Undisputedly, service of the petitioners were dispensed with on 26.11.1993 i.e. almost 16 years back and they were refused regular appointment which was to be made on the basis of interview in which their candidature was rejected on the ground that their names were not sponsored by any employment exchange. 5. While keeping the question of law open, we are of LPA No.346 of 1998 (O&M) -3- the view that in 2010 after almost more than 16 years from the date their service were dispensed with, no direction is required to be issued to the respondents to give regular appointment to the petitioners. We do not want to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage nor we can direct that petitioners may be interviewed now after more than 16 years. 6. In view of the above, appeal lacks merit. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 05.02.2010 JUDGE ashish