CWP No. 5254 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5254 of 2008 Date of Decision : 7.12.2009 Dharambir .......... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.S. Malik, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Markanday, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3. Mr. S.P.Khatri, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Messenger-cum-Sweeper with the Gurgaon Gramin Bank. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Messenger-cum-Sweeper on daily wages by the Gurgaon Gramin Bank on 28.3.2006 and he rendered services for more than 1 ½ years. The post of Messenger-cum-Sweeper was advertised on 6.2.2007 and the one of the conditions of the appointment was as under :- “By making a reference to the Employment Exchange / CWP No. 5254 of 2008 2 Sainik Board. The candidates in the ratio of 1:5 may be suggested to the Employment Exchange/ Sainik Board. Only the candidates spons0ored by the Employment Exchange / Sainik Board shall be considered for test / interview for selection & / or all those persons who are presently working / earlier worked in the bank on temporary / part time daily wage basis will be given preference. The Employment Exchange / Sainik Board to be suggested for the sponsoring of the Candidates belonging to Gurgaon, Mewat, Mehendergarh, Faridabad & Sonipat Districts.” The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.4 was neither sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor he was employee working in the Bank, therefore, his candidature could not be considered for appointment. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the appointment of respondent No.4 is contrary to the advertisement issued, the writ, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The notice of motion was issued. The respondents have filed their reply. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 12593 of 2007 to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 but he withdrew the said writ petition to approach the higher authorities. The representation / appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the General Manager by controverting the pleas raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. CWP No. 5254 of 2008 3 Notice of the writ petition was issued. The respondents filed their replies, wherein a specific stand has been taken that the respondent No.4 had also worked on daily wages at Quamaspur Branch and further that his name was duly sponsored by the Employment Exchange. No replication has been filed. The case of the petitioner was also considered by the Selection Committee along with respondent No.4. The petitioner has not pointed out any irregularity in the selection but has challenged the selection of respondent No.4 for the reason that he was neither sponsored by the employment Exchange nor he was ex- employee of the Bank. The grounds of challenge are found to be baseless. No ground for interference with the selection of respondent No.4 is made out. No merit. Dismissed. 7.12.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE