Civil Revision No. 3241 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3241 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.5.2010 Baldev Chand .. Petitioner v. The State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 12.9.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 11(2) CPC for executing the direction issued in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 5.12.1994, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to be appointed as Store Boy in Punjab Roadways. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.1992. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed appeal, which was allowed on 5.12.1994. The suit of the petitioner was decreed with a direction to appoint him against the post of Store Boy during operation of the select list as and when vacancy arises in Hoshiarpur Depot or any other depot within the jurisdiction of Divisional Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar. The petitioner filed application for execution of the decree on 23.9.2000, which was dismissed vide impugned order passed on 12.9.2009. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned court below on account of wrong affidavit filed by the respondents therein. In fact, number of persons were appointed by the respondents after the passing of decree in favour of the petitioner. Once there was a direction issued by the learned lower appellate court for appointment of the petitioner against the post of Store Boy during the operation of Civil Revision No. 3241 of 2010 [2] select list as and when any vacancy arose in Hoshiarpur Depot or any other Depot within the jurisdiction of Divisional Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar, the petitioner was required to be given appointment. The respondents even though appointed other persons from the select list after the passing of decree in favour of the petitioner, but did not offer appointment to the petitioner, which was clearly in violation of the terms of the decree. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. A perusal of the decree passed in favour of the petitioner by the lower appellate court on 5.12.1994 shows that selection, on the basis of which the appointment was sought, was made way back in the year 1984. Though it has been noticed in the judgment that the petitioner was one of the selected candidates, however, a perusal of the list of selected candidates, produced along with the paper book as Annexure P4, shows that the petitioner was one of the candidates in the waiting list at Sr. No. 5 therein. Further, the direction by the learned lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 5.12.1994 was to offer appointment to the petitioner during the operation of select list. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out as to whether the select list was in operation even when the decree was passed in his favour on 5.12.1994, i.e., 10 years after the selections were made and further in the year 2000 when he filed the application for execution of the judgment and decree in his favour. In the absence thereof, it cannot be opined that the respondents had failed to comply with the terms of the decree. Still further, the petitioner has not been able to point out on record as to whether any of the person out of the waiting list of the selected candidates prepared in the year 1984 was appointed on the basis thereof after the passing of the judgment and decree in his favour. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, dead claim cannot be permitted to be revived. A person, who was merely put in the waiting list in the year 1984, cannot be permitted to claim that in the year 2010, i.e., after 26 years, he should be given appointment or even in the year 2000, when he filed execution of the judgment and decree passed in his favour on 5.12.1994. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.5.2010 mk