IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 757 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 162008 BALWINDER SINGH ...... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PUNJB STATE ETC. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. GS Bal, Advocate, for the appellant. AJAI LAMBA, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of fact. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order under which defendant No.3 had been appointed as Peon was illegal and against Government instructions. As a consequential relief, prayer for issuance of a mandatory injunction was made directing respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. Punjab State through Collector, Gurdaspur, and Principal, Government College, Gurdaspur, to consider the plaintiff for appointment as Peon on regular basis against a vacant post. The case set up by the plaintiff was that he had been serving as a Cycle Shed Attendant and was being paid out of the Students' Fund. The post of Peon that fell vacant was advertised. Demand was also sent to the RSA 757 of 2008 2 Employment Exchange, Gurdaspur. Defendant No.3, however, had been appointed. The plaintiff claimed the right to appointment because he was serving as Cycle Shed Attendant, for which he was being paid out of the Students' Fund. I have considered the issue, arguments of the learned counsel and have gone through the impugned judgments. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel that the plaintiff appeared in the interview and was considered. The learned counsel has also not been able to find fault with the finding that the instructions to the effect that the persons working may also be considered for the post, would only be directory. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality in the findings recorded by the courts below. It has to be considered that compliance of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is required. In such circumstances, once it is found that the post was advertised and the names from Employment Exchange were also solicited and the appellant was also considered for the said post, no illegality in the action of the respondent-defendants can be traced. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed in limine. May 16, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE