Civil Writ Petition No. 16876 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16876 of 2010 Date of decision : 15.11.2011 Kuldip Singh and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioners who are working as Class IV employees such as Gauge Readers, Beldar, Chowkidars, Sewadars etc. have preferred this petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare the result for the Patwari examination held from 25.04.2008 to 28.04.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners sat for the Patwari examination which was held in due course by the department. However, result of the said test has not been declared resulting in prejudice to the petitioners. He has referred to various communications sent by Executive Engineer recommending that petitioners be appointed against the vacant posts of Patwari by promoting them as also for declaration of result of test held from 25.04.2008 to 28.04.2008. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer. He has referred to Rule 10(a) of the Punjab Public Works Departments Civil Writ Petition No. 16876 of 2010 2 (Irrigation Branch) Patwaris State Service Class III, Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘1955 Rules’) and submits that appointment to the posts of Patwari has to be by way of direct appointment. According to him, the petitioners appeared for the test held in April, 2008. However, that would not bestow any right on them to be appointed as Patwaries. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule 10(a) of the 1955 Rules reads thus:- “‘Appointments to the service shall be made direct appointment’. A perusal of the aforesaid rule makes it clear that appointment to the posts of Patwari has to be made by way of direct appointment. It appears, however, that the petitioners managed to sit for examination held from 25.04.2008 to 28.04.2008. Though it is not clear how petitioners were permitted to take the said examination yet merely sitting in the test held by the department cannot bestow any legal right on the petitioners. In view of Rule 10(a) of the 1955 Rules, it is clear that appointment to the posts of Patwari can only be made by way of direct recruitment. Thus, prayer for declaration of result of the said test/examination is misconceived. In view of above, there is no merit in the instant petition. The same is hereby dismissed. November 15, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE