Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1426 (PNJ)

Raman Kumar v. State of Haryana

2022-08-02

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, VIKAS SURI

body2022
JUDGMENT G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) - CM-512-LPA-2020 in LPA-188-2020 1. Application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal. 2. In view of the averments made in the application which is accompanied by an affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. CM stands disposed of. LPA-188-2020 4. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.14460 of 2018 whereby the claim of the petitioner to absorb him in Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College, Kamal, which had been rejected on 24.04.2018 (Annexure P-13) by the competent authority was upheld. 5. Learned Single Judge found that the appellant herein was an employee of the Health Department, Haryana and in pursuance of an advertisement had applied for selection to the post of Laboratory Technician with the said college and the steps were taken to fill up 50% of total posts on transfer basis as per the notification dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure R-l). However, he could not succeed being lower in merit and accordingly a finding was recorded that he was drawing salary from the office of Civil Surgeon, Kamal and he cannot claim his absorption on the ground his name had figured as Technical Supervisor in the Regional Blood Bank Transfusion Centre, Kamal with the said college. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the name of the appellant as such was shown in the inspection check list on 11.04.2017 (Annexure P-10) whereby the Regional Blood Transfusion Centre, General Hospital, Kamal has been changed as Kalpana Chawala Government Medical College, Kamal, wherein he has shown as Technician Supervisor. 7. It is not disputed that the claim of the appellant had been raised in his representation dated 16.10.2017 (Annexure P-11). The learned Single Judge had issued direction in CWP-27266-2017 to decide the representation which had been done by the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 (Annexure P13) by the Director of College. Persual of the impugned order show that his substantive appointment is as Laboratory Technician and is drawing salary from the office of Civil Surgeon. The learned Single Judge had issued direction in CWP-27266-2017 to decide the representation which had been done by the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 (Annexure P13) by the Director of College. Persual of the impugned order show that his substantive appointment is as Laboratory Technician and is drawing salary from the office of Civil Surgeon. Merely on account of fact that his designation was mentioned as Technical Supervisor by the Inspection Committee, as he had been deputed in the Regional Blood Transfusion Centre, Kamal against the vacant post on 14.06.2006, would not give him right to seek absorption on the said post. It has also been noticed as the matter of fact that he was neither appointed as Technician in the Department of Health nor there was any vacant post of the said designation in the Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College, Kamal. 8. It has also been noticed that he had applied for the post of Laboratory Technician on transfer basis through proper channel and was interviewed on 29.09.2016 but could not be selected due to his lower merit. The post of Technical Supervision was not sanctioned by the Finance Department for the College and therefore his claim for adjustment on the said post on transfer basis was not legally tenable and he could not claim the said post. It has also been recorded that no such post is lying vacant in the College and it was wrongly represented that his designation was Technical Supervisor and therefore his claim has been rejected. 9. In such circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the appellant-petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for being absorbed and nothing could be pointed out as under which policy was the writ-petitioner seeking to maintain the said claim. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that writ petition firstly was not maintainable. It is settled principle that writ of mandamus would lie where there is a legal right, on the basis of which claim can be enforced by court and an aggrieved person can approach this court for enforcement of the said claim. In the absence of any such right the claim is thus baseless. 10. Resultantly, there is no merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed.