CWP No.2275 of 1988 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 2275 of 1988 Date of Decision: 2 - 12 - 2008 Prof.Mrs.Kamlesh Chandna and others ....Petitioners v. Managing Committee, Arya College, Panipat ....Respondents and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: None for the petitioners. Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vishal Malik, Advocate for the private respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) Mr.Malik state that he is appearing on behalf of private respondents. He state that by efflux of time the petitioners and all private respondents have retired and the present petition has been rendered infructuous. Since the petitioners and private respondents have already retired, it has been prayed by Mr.Malik that in case any benefit accrued to petitioners and respondents, then no recovery be effected in view of the settled legal proposition. It was held in Sahib Ram v. The State of Haryana and others, 1995 Supreme Court Cases Suppl. (1) 18, that when there is no CWP No.2275 of 1988 [2] misrepresentation on the part of the employee, the recovery cannot be effected. It was also held in Purshottam Lal Das and others v. The State of Bihar and others in Appeal (Civil) 4386 of 2006 decided on 10th October, 2006 that recovery may not be just, where there is no misrepresentation on the part of the employee. In Babulal Jain v. State of M.P. and others, 2007 (4) SLR 123, Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that where the candidate has not committed any fraud or misrepresentation, recovery ought not to be effected. Dismissed as infructuous, as prayed and recovery be not effected in view of observations made above. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) December 2, 2008. JUDGE RC