IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9301 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.12.2011 Ex-Air Man 572698-G SGT Narinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms.Anjali Kukar, Advocate for respondent No.5. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. On 11.3.2011, this Court had noticed that respondent No.4, who was selected, instead of joining had applied for further extension from the Armed Force so as to join the employment. The period was granted to him and subsequently another extension was granted for three years which was valid upto March 2010. The petitioner claims that he is in the waiting list at Sr.No.1 and was entitled to be selected in view of the clear ineligibility of respondent No.4 on account of his seeking extension from the Armed Force. This Court had directed Mr.Rathee, learned counsel appearing for the State C.W.P.No.9301 of 2010 -2- of Haryana to seek instructions as to whether respondent No.4 had joined the service pursuant to his selection or not. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 3.8.2011 learned counsel for the State pointed out that the candidature of respondent No.4 has been cancelled but the waiting list is not exhausted by appointing the petitioner. Mr. Rathee took numerous adjournments to seek instructions in this regard and on 30.9.2011 he stated that he needs more time to seek instructions in terms of the order dated 3.8.2011. The matter was adjourned to 28.11.2011, on which date Mr.Rathee was instructed by Ms.Veena, Superintendent that respondent No.4 has not joined the assignment at all. Having regard to the fact that it is the positive case of the petitioner that unwarranted extension is being given to respondent No.4 to enable him to join the post and which had defeated the case of the petitioner, who stands at Sr.No.1 in the waiting list, there was no justification for respondents No.1 to 3 to have resorted to this process. This Court then noticed that the case of the petitioner prima facie was prejudiced on account of the stand of respondents No.1 to 3 who had been granting extensions to respondent No.4 who had not availed the opportunity of employment. Despite the period of 9 months having elapsed since the passing of order dated 11.3.2011 and despite the fact that the appointment of respondent No.4 stands cancelled as per the information supplied to the Court, the petitioner has still not been appointed to the post. Today when the matter was taken up, a communication C.W.P.No.9301 of 2010 -3- has been submitted to the Court in which it has been stated that the attempts are being made to give due notice to respondent No.4 so that he does not take up a plea that he was not informed before the petitioner is given any employment. The said communication is taken on record. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that respondents No.1 to 3 are bent upon to defeat the right of the petitioner. On the one hand, they have unnecessarily granted extensions to respondent No.4, which clearly reveals a tilt in his favour and, on the other hand, since March 2011 they have sought to hoodwink the Court. At the same time, the petitioner has been denied the appointment on account of unwarranted conduct of respondents No.1 to 3. For the aforesaid reasons, when there is absolutely no justification to grant repeated extensions to respondent No.4 to join the posting and at the same time denying the benefit to the petitioner who is at Sr.No.1 on the waiting list, I deem it appropriate to direct respondents No.1 to 3 to grant appointment to the petitioner forthwith by exhausting the waiting list. The necessary order be passed within a period of two days from today. The respondents No.1 to 3 for having demonstrated their unjust stand before this Court are burdened with costs of Rs.50,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner. The costs shall be recovered from the pocket of the person who has caused unnecessary delay before this Court. The petition stands allowed. 16.12.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) dss JUDGE