IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 17974 OF 2000 DECIDED ON : 23-07-2008 Brij Bhushan ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.Vijay Pal , Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.B.S.Dhillon, DAG, Punjab for respondents 1 and 2 None for respondent No.3 AJAY TEWARI, J (ORAL) The petitioner alleges that in response to advertisement dated 24-01- 1999, he applies for a permanent post of Clerk for which interview was held in February, 1999. He further alleges that after the interview he was informed by the authorities of respondent No.3 that he had been selected but because of the order of respondent No.1, recruitment to aided posts in private schools had been banned. The petitioner further alleged that his appointment order could not be issued because of the aforesaid ban and that on 01-07-1999, the authorities of respondent No.3 forced him to work on temporary basis at a consolidated salary of Rs.2500/- per month with the assurance that his case would be sent for approval as and when the ban is lifted and that, in fact, the said ban was actually lifted vide letter dated 23-12-1999. Further the case of the petitioner is that after the ban was lifted on 02-02-2000, respondent No.3 advertised another post of clerk. Though it is not mentioned in the petition yet the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the petitioner also applied in pursuance to the said advertisement. As a consequence of this advertisement, one Varinder Mohan was appointed. The --2-- further case of the petitioner is that even though he worked till September 2000, he was paid salary only upto March, 2000. In the circumstances, the petitioner has claimed inter alia the following reliefs:- “(ii) to direct the respondent No.3 to forward the case for approval of his appointment as Clerk to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and allow him to continue working by treating him as a regular employee of respondent No.3; (iii)to direct respondents to grant all the consequential benefits of pay and allowances w.e.f. The date he has not been paid i.e. 01- 03-2000 to till date In the written statement filed by respondent No.3, the allegations of the petitioner have been denied. It has been denied that as a consequence of the advertisement dated 24-01-1999,the petitioner was selected. On the contrary, it has been stated that after the receipt of letter dated 30-03-1999, the entire selection process was cancelled. It has been averred that the petitioner worked only till 01`- 03-2000 on temporary basis and that thereafter his services were dispensed with. The two questions which arise for determination in this case are whether the petitioner was selected in pursuance to the advertisement dated 24-01- 1999 and whether he worked upto September, 2000. Both these questions are questions of fact and cannot be gone into beyond the jurisdiction of a Writ Court. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to seek his redressal in a competent Court of law. Sd/- [Ajay Tewari] Judge 23-07-2008 MandeepKaur