IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.907 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 21.10.2009 Balwan Singh. -----Appellant Vs. S.M. Gupta and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. The appellant is aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge, quashing his appointment as Accounts Officer vide order dated 17.4.2007. 2. Respondents No.1 to 5 filed writ petition, challenging order of appointment of the appellant on probation for one year without following any procedure. Case of the writ petitioners was that the appellant was junior most Accountant and had been given accelerated promotion and was not eligible for further promotion over and above the petitioners. The post of Accounts Officer fell vacant in October, 2006 on account of resignation of LPA No.907 of 2009 the previous incumbent and the appointment was given to the appellant against the said post without adopting any procedure. 3. Stand of the Corporation, wherein the appellant was appointed, was that the appellant was most eligible candidate and had been appointed against reserved category. 4. During the course of hearing, stand of the Corporation was that appointment of the appellant was against direct quota post which was reserved for Scheduled Caste category, but no applications were invited from eligible candidates. Neither any advertisement was issued nor any selection procedure was adopted. 5. Learned Single Judge held that without following the prescribed procedure, the appointment of the appellant could not be sustained. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his appointment was by way of promotion and procedure for direct recruitment was not required to be followed. There is, however, nothing to support this contention in the pleadings. In absence of any averment that appointment of the appellant was by promotion and after following the procedure for promotion, such a contention cannot be accepted. Moreover, this stand will be against the stand taken by the Corporation before learned Single Judge and even letter of appointment given to the appellant showing that the appellant was appointed on probation. 2 LPA No.907 of 2009 8. In view of above, no ground is made out to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 21, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3