L.P.A.No. 1085 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A.No. 1085 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 1.9.2010. Sahib Singh Appellant . VERSUS State of Punjab and another Respondents === CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. === Present: Mr. J.S.Thind, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? RITU BAHRI,J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 10.11.2009 passed by Learned Single Judge whereby he has dismissed the Civil Writ Petition. L.P.A.No. 1085 of 2010 2 The petitioner is claiming issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him as a Patwari in the Revenue Department under the handicapped quota. A prayer has also been made for setting aside the memo dated 11.6.2008 (Annexure P-8) by which his representation for appointment against handicapped quota has been rejected. The petitioner has paralysis on the right lower limb on account of polio. His disability has been assessed at 50%. The petitioner registered himself with the Employment Exchange, Amritsar on 14.2.2003. In Civil Writ Petition No. 14167 of 1997, this Court has issued a direction to fill up 3% posts from the handicapped quota. In compliance of the above direction, an advertisement has been issued filling up vacant posts of Patwari from disabled/handicapped quota. The advertisement was published on 9.8.2000. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner did not apply for the post whereas 12 persons have been selected against the advertised posts. The factual position is that the petitioner had registered his name in the Employment Exchange in February, 2003 i.e. much after the advertisement of the posts. Learned counsel for the State L.P.A.No. 1085 of 2010 3 has further apprised the Court that no appointment has been made after the appointment in response to the advertisement issued in the year 2000. Mr.Jasminder Singh Thind, learned counsel for the appellant, while arguing the case, has tried to seek benefit by pleading that some posts in the handicapped quota are still lying vacant in Amritsar District and a direction should be given to appoint him against the vacant posts. On the above facts, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show either discrimination, arbitrariness or a right to be considered for appointment without applying for the post. We have gone through the grounds of Letter Patent Appeal and the record. We find that the petitioner registered himself in the Employment Exchange in Amritsar District in the year 2003. He can not claim any legal right for appointment as no advertisement after the year 2000 has been issued by the department. In addition to, he did not apply against the advertisement published in the year 2000. The judgment of the learned Single Judge does L.P.A.No. 1085 of 2010 4 not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the Letters Patent fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR ) (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE JUDGE 01.09.2010 Anoop