IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9493 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 14, 2009 Balbir Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.P. Vashisht, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate, for respondent No.5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Order dated 2.4.2008 (Annexure P-5) vide which legal notice dated 15.9.2007 issued on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Further prayer made in the petition is for CWP No.9493 of 2008 [2] issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Clerk against the advertised vacant post for a period of three years on contract basis, after considering 20 years’ experience of the petitioner in Community Wing, on parity basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner joined the service as Clerk on 8.4.1987 in Community Polytechnic Wing, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner has passed B.A. The petitioner served the respondents for 20 years. The post was under a scheme which was wound up on 31.7.2007, as a result of which, the petitioner became unemployed. It has been brought out that on 27.8.2007, 12 vacancies were advertised for appointment of Clerks in polytechnic located in Punjab. The appointments were to be made on three years’ contract basis. The petitioner was fully eligible for the post of Clerk and he applied for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during arguments, has specifically admitted the fact that petitioner was over-age being more than 35 years of age. The claim has been confined by learned counsel for the petitioner to the fact CWP No.9493 of 2008 [3] that respondent No.5, Prem Parkash, has been appointed by the respondents who was also over- age. Claiming parity, the petitioner claims right to be appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has been discriminated. Learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that respondent No.5, Prem Parkash, had joined Community Polytechnic Wing in 1996 as a Peon. Respondent No.5 served till 10.8.2007. Said Prem Parkash (respondent No.5) had filed Civil Writ Petition No.4790 of 2001 which had been disposed of on 24.3.2003 with a direction to the respondents to consider his case and decide his representation and appoint him if he fulfils requisite qualifications for appointment as a Peon. Learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that respondent No.5 is a handicapped person. Under the circumstances, he was entitled to relaxation of 10 years in age. Respondent No.5, fulfilling the conditions of appointment for Class IV post, was appointed as Class IV employee in Pandit Jagat Ram Government Polytechnic College, Hoshiarpur. I have considered the issue. CWP No.9493 of 2008 [4] Petitioner claims parity with a person who is handicapped and has been appointed on Class IV post. The petitioner cannot claim parity with the private respondent (Prem Parkash) as the said respondent has been appointed in a different cadre. The private respondent, as per the case of the official respondents, was eligible after relaxation in age, being a handicapped person. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not eligible, being over-age and more than 35 years of age. The petitioner has no right to claim consideration for appointment as Clerk. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate his claim. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 14, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?