IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16894 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 09, 2011 Ajay Malik ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.Vivek Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The mother of the petitioner made a request for appointment of his son as Deputy Ranger in place of her late husband Shri Randhir Singh Malik, who was working as a Technical Assistant. Respondent No.3 wrote to respondent No.2 to clarify that the petitioner can be appointed on ex-gratia quota in the pay scale of `5000-7850 as against the pay scale of `5450-8000 on which the father of the petitioner was working. The petitioner was appointed as a Forester on ex-gratia basis in the pay scale of ` 4000-100-4800- EB-100-6000 plus usual allowances as admissible. The petitioner was appointed in the pay scale of `4000- 100-4800-EB-100-6000 instead of the pay scale as noted above. The petitioner has now approached this court to mention that one Smt.Saroj Panwar widow of late Shri Ramesh Chander Panwar was appointed as Divisional Publicity Officer in Haryana Forest Department at Publicity and Extension Division, Ambala. She was appointed with the condition that she would acquire the diploma in Mass Communication from recognised University or Institution within one year. The appointment of the petitioner was not made with any such condition, but was made on the lower grade. The petitioner says that had there been such like condition, he would have qualified the said exam. On this basis, the petitioner pleads discrimination and seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him as Deputy Range Forest Officer, for which he has acquired the qualification. The petitioner is one of the fortunate one, who has been appointed on ex-gratia ground. It is not that the petitioner has been appointed on any post after proper selection. In a way, the petitioner can be termed as back door entry. Instead of feeling satisfied and showing his gratitude, the petitioner has now started agitating. If the petitioner had any intention not to accept the appointment, then he should have said so in 2001 when it was offered to him. Having accepted and acquiesced to the offer for almost ten years, the petitioner is unfairly approaching this court for seeking appointment as Deputy Range Forest Officer. The ground of discrimination is not pleaded on any valid ground and that too without any justification. Even Smt.Saroj Panwar was appointed in the year 1999, much before the date of offer of appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner ought to realise that now even the ex-gratia appointment is not available and alternatively ex-gratia grant is being offered. Smt.Saroj Panwar was appointed on the basis of her qualification and on the basis of post held by her relation who had died. No case for interference, thus, is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 09, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE