IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 5105 of 2009 Date of Decision: 31.3.2009. Gurjit Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. R.S. Pandher, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Punjabi pursuance to the advertisement notice issued by the PPSC on 5.1.2002. The petitioner participated in the screening test held on 5.2.2002 and was declared successful. He was called for the interview, which was conducted on 21.2.2002. During this selection, Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu was the Chairman of the PPSC. All selections made by Mr. Sidhu came to be challenged in number of writ petitions. An FIR was also registered and the State Govt. declared all the selections made during the year 2002 as null and void vide order dated 16.5.2003 and the order further stipulated that the decision of the Govt. would not cast any personal stigma on any candidate and the candidates, who had applied were permitted to participate de novo in the selection process. For the bunch of writ petitions filed in this Court including CWP No. 4083 of 2002 and other connected matters, the State Govt. conveyed the decision to constitute a committee to look into the selection made by the PPSC in the year 2002. Considering the request of CWP. No. 5105 of 2009 -2- the State, the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 15.12.2004 passed the following directions:- (i) The Govt. shall constitute appropriate Committee within seven days from today. (ii) the Committee shall scrutinize the Vigilance reports and other records including the recommendations made by the Punjab Public Service Commission in relation to the petitioners and similarly situated candidates and submit a report to this court within seven week; (iii) The Committee shall scrutinize the records subject-wise/ category wise and cover all the posts specified in notification dated 16.5.2005; and (iv) If the Committee comes to the conclusion that the selection in question are not vitiated by any taint then the Govt. will be well advised to withdraw the decision taken by it to terminate the services of the selected candidates and appoint those who have not been appointed so far despite selection.” A copy of the report submitted by the Screening Committee is placed on record as Annexure P-6. In this report the Committee has mentioned that the selection of the Lecturers, Punjabi is also tainted. The petitioner has challenged the report of the Committee as also the order of cancellation of selection after a period of six years from the date of passing of order dated 16.5.2003 and after three years of the issuance of notification dated 6.2.2006. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since some of the candidates have been allowed to join and extension of joining time has been CWP. No. 5105 of 2009 -3- accorded vide Annexure P-10, the petitioner is also entitled to be considered for appointment. The petitioner has failed to place on record any material that the petitioner was ever selected. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Screening Committee, wherein the selection of Lecturers, Punjabi has been held to be tainted. There is no explanation for the delay in filing this petition. For the above reasons, I do no find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 31.3.2009 lucky