IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.552 of 1991 Date of Decision: October 24, 2009 Rajinder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner as Pharmacist. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was eligible for being appointed as Pharmacist. Posts were advertised by the respondents. The petitioner applied as a reserved candidate belonging to backward class. The petitioner was called for interview on 5.9.1989. CWP No.552 of 1991 [2] The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee. It has been asserted that the petitioner was confident of being selected. It has been pleaded that the action of the respondents in not issuing letter of appointment to the petitioner as Pharmacist is illegal and discriminatory. In Para 9 of the petition, it has been pleaded that principles of estoppel bind the respondents to offer letter of appointment in so much as the petitioner had been bonded to serve the respondent-State for a period of three years during the period of permissible upper age limit of 40 years. At the point in time when the petition was filed, the petitioner was 34 years of age, and therefore, had a vested right to be appointed on the post of Pharmacist. The issue has been clarified by the respondents in the written statement (Para 5). It has been pointed out that eligible candidates including the petitioner were called for interview on 4.9.1989 by the Departmental Selection Committee. Even the persons who had not executed the bond, had been selected in view of the fact that their merit was higher. CWP No.552 of 1991 [3] In regard to the bond, it has been clarified that the bond provides that the candidate would serve the Government for a period of three years, “if and when selected”. The bond has been justified by the respondents while saying that free training is given to every selected person and therefore, necessity of the bond. I have considered the issue. Since the bond provides that if and when selected, the person selected would serve the employer, no right is vested in the petitioner to seek a writ commanding the respondents to issue letter of appointment. In view of the fact that the petitioner had been called for interview and the persons higher in merit had been selected, I find no case of discrimination. No ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) October 24, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?