IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21817 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: November 25, 2011 Jatinder Jassal …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.N.P. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to decide his case for appointment to the post of Soil Conservation Officer. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioner joined the respondent department as a Watershed Development Officer (Technical) and continued to work for more than three years. In order to consider him for appointment on terms other than contractual, information was sought by the department from the Department of Personnel vide letter dated 7.2.2011 (Annexure P4/T). This was followed by another communication dated 25.3.2011 (Annexure P7/T)) specifying experience acquired by the petitioner and other similarly placed employees on the post of Watershed Development Officer. However, ignoring claim of the petitioner, Punjab Agricultural University issued advertisement (Annexure P-8) seeking applications for direct appointment to number of posts as stated therein. Civil Writ Petition No.21817 of 2011 - 2 - Learned counsel submits that said advertisement is an indirect method to frustrate the claim of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident that petitioner joined the Soil Conservation Department as Watershed Development Officer (Technical) on contractual basis. He continued to work on said post from February-2008 onwards. It appears that said appointment was under a centrally sponsored scheme. There is nothing on record to show that apart from appointment on contractual terms, any right is bestowed on the petitioner to continue on said post or a higher post. As regards advertisement (Annexure P-8), a query has been put to learned counsel whether same has been issued pursuant to any requisition sent by administrative department. However, no clear answer is forthcoming. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no interference in the writ jurisdiction is required. Dismissed. November 25, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 2