CWP No. 618 of 2017. Case: Jagat Bahadur Vs Parasar Bharti and Ors.. High Court of Punjab (India)

Case NumberCWP No. 618 of 2017
CounselFor Appellant: Suresh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
JudgesRajiv Narain Raina, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Articles 14, 16
Judgement DateFebruary 01, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Punjab (India)


Rajiv Narain Raina, J.

  1. A vacancy arose in the cadre of Mali in All India Radio (AIR), Chandigarh when Budh Ram retired on 31.03.1998. The process was initiated by the Station Director, AIR, Chandigarh to fill the post as per Standing Instructions of the Government of India. The Employment Exchange, Chandigarh was requested by letter dated 25.06.1998 to sponsor the names of eligible candidates for the post of Mali. The names of 16 candidates were received on 10.07.1998 from the Exchange. After the interviews were conducted, the name of the petitioner was recommended for the post. He was asked to fill up the Attestation Form vide office letter dated 16.07.1998 and his case was sent to the District Magistrate, UT, Chandigarh for police verification of character and antecedents. The petitioner was informed in writing of his selection as Mali vide letter dated 16.07.1998 (Annex P-3) but appointment was not offered by an appointment letter.

  2. In the meantime, office of the Station Director, AIR, Chandigarh received Directorate Instructions vide letter dated 02.07.1998 (Annex P-4) that there is a complete ban on direct recruitment in Prasar Bharati. This communication compelled the office to stop further action in filling up the post. The Regional Employment Exchange was informed vide office letter dated 21.09.1998 not to strike off the name of the petitioner from the Registration Rolls and his name may be sponsored to other Departments where recruitments are pending or in the offing. As letter of appointment was not issued to the petitioner it could not be said that an indefeasible right to appointment had came into existence by mere act of selection.

  3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 24.12.1998 (Annex P-6) on the respondent-authorities, which was responded to vide letter dated 21.01.1999 (Annex P-7) citing ban on fresh recruitment as reason why the selection did not fructify in appointment. The chapter remained closed till the petitioner on learning from secret sources that the ban on creation of posts and filling of vacancies was lifted when O.M. dated 02.07.1998 was withdrawn. The petitioner says that this fact was not known to him throughout till he received a reply to his request under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to supply him information regarding the lifting of the ban. The information was received on 14.03.2016 from the respondent office when Annex P-5 came into his possession. Upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT