LPA No.1740 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1740 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.12.2010 Inder Pal Bishnoi ..Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. R.N.Raina, 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 under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 22.9.2010 rendered by the Learned Single Judge of this Court . The appellant has claimed that he should be adjusted against a vacancy concerning the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) of the year 1983. The learned Single Judge has rejected the claim by assigning sound reasons. It has firstly been held that the appellant was selected as Excise and Taxation Officer in the year 1983 and he joined the Allied Services in the year 1984. He did not claim any benefit of the selection of the earlier years upto 1999. His first representation made in the year 1999 was for protection of pay and not for his appointment against the vacancy of Haryana Civil LPA No.1740 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Services (Executive Branch) pertaining to the year 1983. None of the selected persons, who have been selected and appointed, were impleaded as party in the petition. The appellant competed for the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) in the year 1992 and was appointed in the year 1994. He had joined the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) on the basis of fresh advertisement without any reservation. Therefore the doctrine of “estoppel' would be attracted. The representation made by the appellant in the year 2005 could not be entertained as the Act of 2002 as by then Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and other Services, Common/Combined Examination Act, 2002, was notified, which came into operation with effect from 29.8.1989 and therefore judgment in Virender Singh Hooda and others v. State of Haryana and another, (1999) 3 SCC 696 is not to be available to the appellant. The seniority can not be disturbed after a long lapse of time as it would lead to unsettle the settled position. Having perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hearing the argument of the learned counsel, we are of the view that there is no room warranting interference of this Court. The relief claimed is highly belated and is likely to affect prejudicially to large number of persons. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal and the same does not warrant admission. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI ) 17.12.2010 JUDGE VK