IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16209 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 10th March, 2010. Hemant Jasuja Petitioner through Mr. Arvinder Singh, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mrs. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint him as Soil Conservation Officer retrospectively, i.e., from the date when other candidates selected along with him, have been given appointment, namely, w.e.f. 2.5.2002. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and also the record perused. Shorn of the details, it may be noticed that pursuant to an advertisement issued on 15.09.1997 for filling up 39 posts of Soil Conservation Officers, the petitioner had also applied. The Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab [ for short 'the Board'] declared the final result on 22.12.2001. The petitioner was at No. 1 amongst the Wait Listed candidates. The selected candidates were offered appointments on 02.05.2002. Some of the candidates, however, did not join the offered posts. The petitioner had to approach this Court to seek a direction for his appointment against the vacancy which remained unfilled due to non-joining of the selected candidates. Finally, he was appointed on 24.5.2004. The petitioner now seeks a direction to ante-date his appointment to 2.5.2002 when other candidates selected along with him were given appointments. It being not in dispute that the petitioner was at No. 1 amongst the Wait Listed candidates and five selected candidates out of 39 did not joint the Department, there can indeed be no doubt that the petitioner was entitled to be offered appointment being next candidate in order of merit. The petitioner, however, was not offered appointment and had to approach this Court by way of CWP No. 15642 of 2002 which was allowed on 29.05.2003 [Annexure P-1]. The respondents preferred Special Leave Petition No. 15837 of 2003 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8.9.2003. There was, thus, no legal embargo against appointment of the petitioner to the subject post soon thereafter. The delay in implementing the court orders can not work to the disadvantage of the petitioner. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that for the purposes of seniority and pay fixation only [without paying any arrears of pay], the petitioner shall be treated to have joined the service on 9.9.2003. Disposed of. Dasti. March 10, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE