IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

237 Date of decision: 12.03.2026 Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate with Mr. Gagandeep Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure P-9), vide which the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Workshop Superintendent in Backward Class Category has been rejected.

2. The brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that respondent No.3-Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission') issued an advertisement No.8 in the month of January, 2016, whereby 06 posts of Workshop Superintendents were advertised and out of said 06 posts, 01 post was reserved for BC Category. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 and the petitioner were selected in the merit at Sr. No.1 and 2 respectively. Consequently, respondent No.4 was offered appointment to the said post, vide appointment letter dated 13.10.2021, however, he did not join within stipulated period and submitted a representation dated 08.11.2021, seeking extension in the joining period, which was accepted and joining period was extended for 03 months from 13.10.2021 to 12.01.2022. However, still respondent No.4 did not join even after expiry of the extended period and consequently, the appointment of respondent No.4 was cancelled due to his non-joining on the said post. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the petitioner was at Sr. No.2 in the merit list in BC category, he was entitled to be offered appointment once the appointment of respondent No.4 was cancelled due to his non-joining.

3. Learned State counsel has made reference to the relevant averments in the written statement which reads thus:-

“viii) That accordingly offer of appointment vide letter dated 13.10.2021 was issued to the Respondent No.4 by Respondent No. 1 and thereafter, while considering the representation dated 08.11.2021 given by Respondent No.4, joining period was also extended for 3 months from

13.10.2021 to 12.01.2022.

(ix) That according to the report received by the head of the institution, the said candidate did not join even after expiration of the three months extension. Therefore, as the period of appointment issued to respondent No. 4 had expired and his candidature was cancelled due to his non joining.

(x) That in the meanwhile, the decision was taken by the higher authorities to stop the recruitment process/cases for the advertisement issued in the year 2015-16 under the Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training (Technical Education Wing), except the ongoing court cases and this was approved by the then Minister, Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training on 06.01.2022 and the process of recruitment was completed.”

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The facts are not in dispute that in the merit list, respondent No.4 was at Sr. No.1 and the petitioner was at Sr. No.2 in BC Category. Respondent No.4 was offered appointment on 13.10.2021, but he did not join and on his representation, the joining period was extended till 12.01.2022, however, respondent No.4 again did not join and consequently, his candidature was cancelled. Once the candidature of respondent No.4 was cancelled, the right had accrued to the petitioner to claim appointment and it was incumbent upon the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner being next in the order of merit in BC category. A Division Bench of this Court in Ritu D/o Sh. Nafe Singh v. State of Haryana and others : 2013(3) SCT

281, while considering the similar issue has held as under:-

“10. A somewhat similar and relevant issue came up for