LPA No. 1394 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1394 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 03.02.2011 Dalbir Singh ---Appellant Versus State of Haryana & others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Chanchal Singhal, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner-appellant has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment 21.10.2009, rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that merely by working during strike period, the writ petitioner- appellant would not acquire any right on account of the directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 16.01.2004 in pursuance to the decision rendered in SLP Nos. 6515 and 6517of 2003 (c). The direction of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP, which became Civil Appeal Nos. 316 and 317 of 2004, are reproduced for facility of reference as under: “ Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the LPA No. 1394 of 2010 (O&M) -2- appellants has taken us through the several orders and affidavits filed on behalf of the appellants particularly, the averments made in the additional affidavit filed on October 8, 2003. It is submitted that the presently more vacancies are available as compared number of candidates in the waiting list, for appointment, namely, those who were petitioners in different writ petitions filed in the High Court. It is submitted that all these persons shall be accommodated against the vacancies wherever available and preference shall be given first in the Depot of origin. In case no such vacancy is available in the Depot of origin, option for other depots shall be taken from the candidates, otherwise, they will be posted in the depots wherever vacancies may be available. It is also indicate in paragraph 'E' of the aforesaid affidavit filed on October, 8, 2003 that the eligibility of the candidates for appointment shall be that they fulfill the prescribed educational qualification and age requirement as in December 1993 and they possess requisite license. It is also indicated on behalf of the appellants that the persons the waiting list shall be given first preference before filling up the vacancies by any other out side candidates. LPA No. 1394 of 2010 (O&M) -3- The appeals are finally disposed of in the manner as indicated above. Sd/- Brijesh Kumar J. Sd/- Arun Kumar J.” 2. The writ petitioner-appellant had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 1976 of 2007, which was disposed of with the direction to respondents to decide his representation. The representation has been decided on 19.07.2007 (P-3). The principal reason for rejection of the claim made by the writ petitioner- appellant disclosed in the order dated 19.07.2007 is that earlier he was offered the job by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sirsa on 11.03.1998 for appointment as Driver and after completion of official formality, he left the job on his own. An opportunity was given to the writ petitioner-appellant for appointment to the post of Driver but he had left the job on his own. The respondent held that services under the Transport Department fall under the essential services and such type of careless, irresponsible and absentee official could not be expected to render good service and therefore, to take back in service such type of employee is neither in the interest of department nor of public interest. Accordingly, the representation made by the writ petitioner-appellant was rejected. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length. 4. It has come on record that the writ petitioner-appellant had rendered 16 days of service from 06.08.1998 to 13.08.1998, LPA No. 1394 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 1.09.1998 to 03.09.1998 and 7.10.1998 to 11.10.1998. The total period of service rendered by him is for 8 days + 3 days + 5 days (16 days). Moreover, he has abandoned service in pursuance to appointment letter issued on 11.03.1998. The writ petitioner- appellant has no right to hold the post by rendering only 16 days of service particularly when he has abandoned the post himself. The matter is not covered by direction issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its order dated 16.01.2004. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. 5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE February 3, 2011 Atul