IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8070 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 24.07.2009 Sunil Chander .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 11.5.2009, passed by respondent No.2, whereby representation of the petitioner to appoint/absorb him on the post of Waiter in the Haryana Tourism Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent Corporation') has been declined. In the present case, the petitioner on completion of Course in House Keeping from the Food Craft Institute, Faridabad, in June, 1990, was appointed as job trainee vide appointment letter dated 26.7.1991 (Annexure P-2) for a period of two years. As per the condition of the said appointment letter, on the successful completion of the said training of two years, the petitioner was to be considered for appointment on a regular post, subject to CWP No. 8070 of 2009 -2- the availability of post. It appears that after completion of the said training, the petitioner and other similarly situated trainees were not considered for regular appointment on the available posts and they were asked to continue for some period as job trainees. Aggrieved against the action of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner and other similarly situated trainees filed CWP No. 18474 of 1996, titled as Dharambir versus State of Haryana and another, with a prayer to issue direction to the respondent Corporation to give them regular appointment. The respondent Corporation contested the said petition on the ground that it was under no obligation to give appointment to any trainee on regular basis available with it. This Court vide order dated 1.6.1999 (Annexure P-13) allowed the said writ petition, while observing as under : “As regards petitioners 1 to 51, I am satisfied that some directions need to be issued. It is true that in the appointment letter there is a stipulation that on the completion of their training the Corporation was not under any obligation to offer them any employment but it was stipulated that they would be considered for appointment on a regular post provided the posts were available. In the written statement filed by the Corporation it is averred that no sanctioned posts are available and, therefore, these petitioners could not be considered for regular appointment. However, during the pendency of the writ petition 139 posts of Waiters in the pay scale of Rs. 2610-2540 have been advertised in the Times of India, New Delhi dated March 27, 1999 inviting applications from the eligible candidates. Now that 139 posts of Waiters exist there is no reason why the CWP No. 8070 of 2009 -3- Corporation in terms of the stipulation contained in the letter of appointment should not absorb the petitioners against those posts particularly when they have not only successfully completed the training but have also worked with the Corporation for more than three years. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and a direction issued to the Corporation to absorb petitioners 1 to 51 against the advertised posts if they are eligible for the same.” Against the aforesaid order, the respondent Corporation filed LPA No. 866 of 1999, which was disposed of on 30.9.1999, with the following observations : “Without prejudice to the stand of the respondents on facts alleged in the appeal, by consent of parties, the impugned judgment dated 01.06.1999 is modified to the extent that the writ petition would stand allowed and a direction issued to the Corporation to consider the absorption petitioners No.1 to 51 against the advertised posts, if they are eligible for the same.” In terms of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the claim of the petitioner was considered against the available vacancies, but he was not found eligible for absorption as Waiter, because he was not fulfilling the prescribed qualification. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2000 and he did not challenge the said action of the respondent Corporation. After remaining silent for a period of 8 years, the petitioner made a representation dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure P-10) to the respondent Corporation to appoint/absorb him against the post of Waiters, which were CWP No. 8070 of 2009 -4- lying vacant in the respondent Corporation, on the plea that some similarly situated persons, who were also retrenched trainees, have been given appointment by the respondent Corporation. In this regard, the petitioner mentioned the name of one Virender Singh, who was undergoing training as Counter Incharge. The name of one Hans Raj Yadav, who was given appointment in the year 2006, was also mentioned in the representation. In the petition, the petitioner has also mentioned names of some other persons, who have been given appointment by the respondent Corporation vide order dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure P-9). Vide order dated 11.5.2009 (Annexure P-12), the aforesaid representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his claim was already rejected in the year 2000 and he was not found eligible being not fulfilling the requisite qualification. Hence, this writ petition. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. In the petition, the essential qualifications for appointment on the regular post of Waiter have not been mentioned. It appears that at the time, when the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the regular post, in view of the directions of this Court, was considered, he was only holding the Certificate of having passed the House Keeping Course from the Food Craft Institute, Faridabad, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. Though in the petition, it has been stated that the petitioner is Diploma holder in House Keeping, but it has not been CWP No. 8070 of 2009 -5- mentioned as to when and from where he has obtained the said Diploma. No proof with regard to the holding of the aforesaid Diploma has been annexed with the petition. The facts of the other trainees, who have been appointed subsequently, given by the petitioner in the petition are different. One Virender Singh, whose claim was rejected by the respondent Corporation, filed CWP No. 8117 of 2001, which was allowed by the Full Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2004, and in view of the said judgment, he was appointed. As has been mentioned in the petition itself, the said Virender Singh was possessing qualification of Diploma in Hotel Reception and Book Keeping and has been appointed on the post of Counter-Incharge. The petitioner has also mentioned the name of Hans Raj Yadav, who filed CWP No. 1964 of 2001 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.7.2006 (Annexure P-6). In pursuance of the said order, he was appointed. As per the averments made in the petition, said Hans Raj Yadav was having the qualification of Diploma in Hotel Reception and Book Keeping from Haryana State of Catering and Hotel Management, Panipat. Similarly, other persons, who were also removed by the respondent Corporation, filed CWP No. 6993 of 2002, which was disposed of in the year 2007. Consequently, those petitioners were also appointed. However, the qualification possessed by them has not been mentioned in the petition. The only averment made is that they were similarly situated to the petitioner and were junior to him. This averment in itself is not sufficient. CWP No. 8070 of 2009 -6- From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner remained silent for 8 years. During this period, he did not challenge the action of the respondent Corporation in not appointing/absorbing him in pursuance of the directions of this Court, by declaring him ineligible. Mere filing of a representation after 8 years and rejection of the same will not revive the stale claim of the petitioner, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining Indus. Est. and another, 2009 (1) RSJ 255. In the instant petition, even it has not been stated as to how in the year 2000, when claim of the petitioner was rejected, he was eligible and qualified for appointment on the regular post of Waiter. Merely saying that his case is similar to those persons, who have been appointed, will not help him. Thus, I do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. July 24, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE