Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 915 (UTT)

Narendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-12-02

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : The petitioner before this Court was selected on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department by Uttarakhand State Public Service Commission. The notification to this effect was also published on 15.05.2011, and therefore, on the recommendations of the Uttarakhand State Public Service Commission, the Government issued the appointment letter to the petitioner on 30.04.2012. In the appointment letter dated 30.04.2012, it was clearly written that the last date for joining the services at the designated place would be 28.05.2012. All these facts are admitted facts. The petitioner was aware of the appointment letter as well as the deadline i.e. 28.05.2012 for giving his joining. He admittedly did not join as Junior Engineer before the deadline. Consequently, he moved a representation before the authorities but since nothing was done, he was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court being WPSS No. 112 of 2014, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 01.03.2014 by passing the following order:- “Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondents. Learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondents submits that the only relief sought by the petitioner is to take decision on the representation of the petitioner (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition), therefore, appropriate decision shall be taken on Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition in accordance with law preferably within three weeks from today and decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner as well as to Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner by registered post AD within next ten days. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that present petition may be disposed of in the light of statement made by learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Ordered accordingly.” 2. Subsequent to the order dated 01.03.2014, the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, who is the head of the department, had passed an order on 25.03.2014 stating clearly that the petitioner was fully aware of the last date of his joining. The petitioner has admittedly not joined before the deadline. It was clearly stipulated that under no condition would a candidate be allowed the joining after the cut-off date and therefore he cannot be given joining now. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 25.03.2014. The petitioner has admittedly not joined before the deadline. It was clearly stipulated that under no condition would a candidate be allowed the joining after the cut-off date and therefore he cannot be given joining now. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 25.03.2014. The petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court now, after a period of more than two and a half years by means of the present writ petition. 3. The sole ground for challenging the said order is that now for the same selection year, appointments are being given to other persons and some of the names, the petitioner has cited before this Court and since the appointments are still going on, the petitioner may also be permitted to join as a Junior Engineer. 4. Assuming that for the selection in the year 2012, for some reasons in individual cases joining is being given to candidates even now, but that would not give any right to the petitioner to stake his claim, that too belatedly after a period of four years. The petitioner has not given any reason as to why he could not join before the deadline. Moreover, after the impugned order dated 25.03.2014, he has approached this Court highly belatedly, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner, except that it has come to his knowledge that in some cases appointments are being made even now. 5. Under such circumstances, no relief as is being sought by the petitioner can be granted to him. Not only, the writ petition is highly belated but even on merits as well, the petitioner has absolutely no claim for the reasons that the petitioner has not assigned any valid reasons as to why he did not join on his post, before the deadline i.e. 28.05.2012. Moreover, now after more than four years if joining is permitted, it may have cascading effect in service, inasmuch as by this time the waiting list candidates may also have been given joining. It may also entail removal from the select list of other candidates, who were given such joining pursuant to the failure of the petitioner to join the post before the deadline. Keeping all these aspects in mind, as well as the conduct of the petitioner no relief can be granted to him. 6. It may also entail removal from the select list of other candidates, who were given such joining pursuant to the failure of the petitioner to join the post before the deadline. Keeping all these aspects in mind, as well as the conduct of the petitioner no relief can be granted to him. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.