CWP No.7195 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7195 of 1989 Date of Decision:- March 15, 2010 Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Vice Chancellor, PAU, Ludhiana and others ...Respondents Present: Mr.I.S.Vimal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No ***** K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner challenges the selection of the fourth respondent to the post of Assistant Farm Economist with the Department of Economics and Sociology in the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. The petitioner's claim was that he had been shown as No.3 in the selection list, while the fourth respondent had been No.4, but however, the appointment had been granted to the fourth respondent. 2. At the time of admission, the Bench of this Hon'ble Court had observed, without upsetting the selection of fourth respondent that the next vacancy of the Assistant Farm Economist on the research side, if falling due, will be given to the petitioner and none else and it has directed in its order dated 23.8.1989 that it would be still subject to the final result of the writ petition. At a subsequent hearing in the year 1989 itself, the docket CWP No.7195 of 1989 -2- order reveals that the parties have attempted to settle the matter. The written statement has been filed admitting that the University had approved the appointment of petitioner as Assistant Farm Economist and even the Selection Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner. It appears that although the approval had been issued, they did not still issue the appointment orders because the petitioner was considered more suitable for the post of District Extension Specialist (Farm Management) as he was placed at serial No.1 by the Selection Committee for the said post. The post of Assistant Farm Economist and District Extension Specialist were of equal status. The University has also conceded in the statement that after the appointment letter was issued to the fourth respondent on 21.3.1989, it had come to the notice that the third post of Assistant Farm Economist was also available w.e.f 1.6.1989, after the retirement of an incumbent in the said post. 3. The statement also sets out that the petitioner had actually joined in the regular post as District Extension Specialist (Farm Management) and therefore, they have not considered it expedient to offer him also the post of Assistant Farm Economist. By granting the appointment to a person at No.4 in the list, they were actually allowing for another candidate to be appointed, which could not have been possible if the petitioner had been appointed to the post and the fourth respondent would not have obtained any employment. 4. By the decision of the University, no party has come to any harm. On the other hand, the fairness of the University can be seen by the manner they have adopted the appointment policy. 5. The petitioner cannot have any relief before this court and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. March 15, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Vt JUDGE