IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5834 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 8, 2008 Amarjeet Dhiman …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the allotment of chemist shops to private respondents and seek quashing of allotment to them. The chemist shops have been allotted to respondent Nos. 4 to 9 apart from one other in the premises of General Hospital Ambala City, Ambala Cantt., Naraingarh and T.B. Hospital, Ambala City, as is evident from the perusal of select list dated 2.5.2007 (P-11). The petitioner has alleged that the record has been fabricated and the allotments have been made in an illegal and arbitrary manner. He has sought a direction for setting aside the whole selection process for making allotment of the chemist shops and initiating fresh process. C.W.P. No. 5834 of 2008 Few facts necessary for disposal of the instant petition may first be noticed. On 25.1.2007 (P-1), the Director General of Health Services, Haryana, circulated policy instructions amongst all Civil Surgeons-cum-Member Secretary, District Health and Family Welfare Society of Haryana State, Ambala, with the direction to invite applications for allotment of chemist shops in various General Hospitals in the State of Haryana. It was made clear that in case of any change in the conditions of advertisement, it could be got approved before advertisement is made. The Civil Surgeon- respondent No. 2, issued a public notice dated 22.3.2007 (P-2), inviting applications for allotment of chemist shops in the General Hospital Ambala City, Ambala Cantt., Naraingarh and T.B. Hospital, Ambala City. In the advertisement, the mode of sending application stipulated was by Registered Post only with a fee of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner states that the policy instructions issued by the Director General (P-1) stipulated any mode for the submission application forms up to the last date. The last date of receipt of applications was 5.3.2007. The petitioner has asserted that he was issued Application Form No. 512 by the Civil Surgeon-respondent No. 2 on deposit of Bank Draft dated 5.3.2007, amounting to Rs. 100/-. However, the application form was not accepted by the Civil Surgeon-respondent No. 2 either by hand or by courier on 5.3.2007, which was the last date for submission of the application form, on the ground that the same was to be sent only by Registered Post. It is alleged that the application form bearing various numbers, which were issued after 2 C.W.P. No. 5834 of 2008 issuance of application form to the petitioner, were included in the draw of lot for the chemist shops of General Hospital, Ambala City. Similar allegations have been levelled in respect of the allotment of chemist shops of Ambala Cantt., Naraingarh and T.B. Hospital, Ambala City. There are allegations that duplicate forms were used to show favour to one person or the other and that the draw of lots were manipulated to the advantage of respondent Nos. 4 to 9. Mr. K.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the condition of mode of sending application form has been changed arbitrarily and without obtaining prior permission of the Director General of Health Services. According to the learned counsel the draft instructions provided any mode of sending applications whereas the Civil Surgeon-respondent No. 2 has introduced on his own the mode of sending applications by Registered Post alone. He has also attacked the allotments by stating that the application form of the petitioner has illegally not been accepted because it was not sent by Registered Post although it was sent by courier and it was sought to be submitted by hand. Learned counsel has pointed out various irregularities by stating that the application forms issued after issuance of application form to the petitioner have been considered in the draw of lots, held on 2.5.2007. In support of his submission, learned counsel has argued that Application Form No. 512, issued to the petitioner on 5.3.2007 was rejected whereas Form Nos. 514, 517, 518 so on and so forth, which were obviously issued after the issuance of application form to the 3 C.W.P. No. 5834 of 2008 petitioner on 5.3.2007, were included in the draw of lots. He has also pointed out that fraud has been played in the draw of lots as more than one chemist shops have been allocated to particular family. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and do not feel persuaded to accept anyone of them. The application form of the petitioner was not accepted on 5.3.2007 and he remained content for a period of more than one year when the cause of action had arisen to him. The matter does not end here. He allowed the selection process to be held and allotments to be finalised. It is after a period of one year that rights of other persons have crystallized. The petitioner has approached this Court when he was not even permitted to participate in the selection process. The contention that the application forms bearing serial numbers numerically later than the serial number of the application form belonging to the petitioner would not necessarily show that those application forms have been issued only on 5.3.2007 nor there is any evidence on record to accept that the petitioner had purchased his application form on 5.3.2007. In any case, it cannot be concluded that the application form would sold only by Serial No. and there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. Once the petitioner has accepted the rejection more than one year ago, he cannot approach this Court at such a belated stage, after the selection process has been completed. We do not find any illegality in the choice of mode of sending the application forms by Registered Post because it is more objective and rule out any possibility of fabrication whereas the mode 4 C.W.P. No. 5834 of 2008 of sending application by hand/UPC or other modes might be open to some doubt. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the Civil Surgeon-respondent No. 2 in issuing the public notice, dated 22.3.2007 (P-2). In view of the above, we dismiss the writ petition in limine. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) April 8, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5