IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.08.2025 PANDIT BHAGWAT DAYAL SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, ROHTAK AND ORS.

…. Appellant Versus PARMOD KUMAR …. Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present : Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Mr. Anhad Batta, Mr. Shrenik Jain and Mr. Dushyant Singh, Advocates for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent to pursue the appeal. The matter was passed over in the first round. The position is not different even on the revised call.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant is present but none appears on behalf of the respondent. In such view of the matter, we proceed to take up the appeal for final hearing treating it to be ex parte against the respondent.

3. This appeal arises out of an order dated 02.06.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and a direction is issued to issue appointment letter to the respondent-petitioner within a period of two months. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the petitioner will only get notional benefits for the purpose of seniority, length of service etc. from the date his batchmates, under the advertisement, but he will not be entitled to any actual monetary benefit.

4. Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition by the respondent are as under:-

4.1 Advertisement No.1/2008 was issued by the Appellant-University inviting applications for appointment to various posts including the post of Receptionist under BC-B category. The respondent-petitioner was eligible and participated in the selection process. On account of his low merit, he was not selected and was placed at Sr. No.2 in the waiting list drawn in the year 2014. The recruitment ultimately concluded with appointments offered to selected candidates in the year 2014. One Babru Bhan Yadav was issued an appointment letter on the post of Receptionist on 02.07.2014. It appears that Babru Bhan Yadav did not join, as he was already promoted by the University to a higher post. The person placed at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list namely, Rajender was also not offered the post. It is alleged by the respondent- petitioner that he had made an application under the RTI Act, wherein, he was informed that waiting list’s candidates have not been offered any appointment. 4.2 In the year 2016, the appellant-University again advertised 17 posts of Receptionist under various categories. As per the appellant-University, this advertisement included the post of Receptionist which was earlier included in advertisement No.1 of 2008 and had not been filled. The respondent- petitioner, at this stage, made certain representations for considering his case for appointment but since nothing was done, he ultimately came to this Court by filing CWP No.15433 of 2017. The writ petition has been presented on

14.07.2017.

4.3 The writ petition was contested, on notice of motion, by the appellant-University on the ground that the respondent had no right to claim appointment at this belated stage since the selection process had concluded on 11.06.2014. It was further urged that as per instructions dated 28.10.1993, issued by State Government, the validity of the select list was limited to 6 months and even after further extension of 6 months’ term, the validity of the waiting list expired on 10.06.2015. It was in this context that the matter came before the learned Single Judge.

4.4 The respondent-petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that though, he was placed in the waiting list and a post was available, yet the appellant arbitrarily did not consider his case and therefore, writ be issued in his favour to command the appellant to appoint him.

4.5 Learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1165 of