CWP No. 328 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 328 of 1990 Date of decision January 17 , 2011 Manmohan Singh ....... Appellant Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R. L. Sharma , Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition is for issue of a mandamus to allow the petitioner to join the services as Junior Plant Attendant on the basis of order of appointment issued on 23.12.1988. The letter of offer of appointment directed the petitioner to express the acceptance within a period of seven days from the date of issue of the order and that he should be present on duty within 15 days at a particular place at his own expenses. The contention of the petitioner was that he had appeared in person to join duty on 5.1.1989 but he was turned away requiring him to produce a proof that he was wholly dependent on the ex-service man. The performa which is said to have accompanied the offer of appointment is reproduced in the written statement and is as follows:- “A) It is certified that Sh./Smt. _____son/daughter of Ex-serviceman and is dependent upon him. Sh. _________ has served in Military from ______ to _____. CWP No. 328 of 1990 2 B) Sh. _______has not served in Punjab Govt./P.S.E.B. After release/discharge. C) None of the son/daughter of Sh. ______ has been granted/received any benefit as per instructions issued by the Punjab Govt. letter No.14/99/79-8 DW/8-10 dated 11.1.82. D) Sh. ______Ex-serviceman does not fulfill the requisite conditions regarding Academic qualification & age etc. for the post of _______. 2. The whole issue has to be therefore seen in the context of whether the petitioner had complied with the terms of offer of appointment and whether he was in a position to produce the document which was required to be produced by him. The letter which he has sent on 12.1.1989 reads that when he approached the District Sainik Welfare Officer for giving a certificate in the manner provided in the performa, he was refused the same due to the fact that no similar certificate could be issued afresh. He was making an allusion to a document that he had produced before the authorities a copy of which is produced as Annexure P-5 which reads as follows:- “It is certified that Manmohan Singh is s/o Sub Maj/Hony. Captain Dharam Singh, Sub. Maj/Hony Captain Dharm Singh has served from 2.5.1947 to 1.6.1975 in Army. Hony Capt. has not received any other Govt. service after discharge and no other member of his family have received any benefit of Punjab Govt. letter No.14/99/79-BDW/8-10 dated 11.82. Hony Capt. Dharam Singh expired on 31.7.79 at Faridkot.” This certificate does not conform to the performa and it merely records the fact that he was a son of the deceased ex-service man. It shall not be of any avail for the petitioner to contend that he was CWP No. 328 of 1990 3 not in a position to produce a certificate in the manner required under the performa. If there was any difficulty for him to secure the certificate in the manner that was necessary, he should have approached this Court immediately for appropriate directions against the District Sainik Welfare Officer for issuance of such a certificate to enable him to join the service. However, it is seen that the certificate was not produced in the manner required and his own letter of request which he had written on 12.1.1989 was not acceded. The order of appointment itself was purported to have been cancelled on 5.9.1989. This letter of communication of cancellation of appointment is denied by the petitioner but I do not think it makes a difference for the offer of appointment clearly spells out that he should express the willingness to join within a week and produce the certificate in the manner set out in the letter of offer. If it was not possible for him to produce such a certificate and he had also not taken steps to ensure within a reasonable time the appropriate authority could have been compelled to issue such a certificate then it should only be seen that the petitioner was not vigilant in exercising his right within the reasonable time. He cannot wait over a year, allow the grass to grow under his feet, as it were done and come up with a writ petition that he should be directed to be employed at this length of time after 21 years. It shall not be possible to secure to him such a relief. Even the issue of granting him compensation cannot arise where the offer of appointment had not come fruition by his own lapse. No relief is possible. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 17, 2011 archana