****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by the respondents whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) has arbitrarily been rejected and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner who is next in the line for appointment towards post of Junior Engineer (Civil) as the candidate above the petitioner has failed to join the post and petitioner being next in the merit is liable to be considered for appointment and further directing the respondents to keep one post reserved for the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition and not to re-advertise the same.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that in pursuance to the advertisement (Annexure P-1), 15 posts of General category were advertised and out of those 15 posts, 02 posts were reserved for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category (one post was unreserved while the another post was reserved for female candidate). He further submits that since no female candidate could qualify, therefore, these two posts were offered to Sh. Anubhav Singh Sisodiya (Merit No.328) and Sh. Maninder Singh (Merit No.363) and the petitioner was next in the merit list at Serial No.367. He also submits that the first candidate Sh. Anubhav Singh Sisodiya was offered appointment vide letter dated 15.11.2023 and thereafter, vide letter dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure P-4), he was given last and final opportunity to submit the necessary documents within a period of 15 days, however, vide letter dated 08.12.2023, he surrendered the offer of appointment by stating that he is already working as Junior Engineer-cum-Mining Inspector in the Water Resources Department.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner was next in the merit list in E.W.S. category, therefore, he submitted representation seeking appointment against the said post, which has been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure P-9) by holding that the validity of the advertisement No.CRA/10/2021 was approved till 30.11.2021 and during the approved validity period, the post of Junior Engineer/Civil was offered to Sh. Anubhav Singh Sisodiya, which was filled up and later, surrendered the offer of appointment after the expiry of validity period and thus, on account of expiry of validity period and after approval of the higher authorities, his request has been declined.

2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent-Corporation did not act diligently or in a reasonable manner. It is contended that although the decision to extend the validity of the waiting list was taken in the month of August, 2023, the respondent-Corporation kept the matter pending for almost two months and failed to operate the said waiting list by calling the next candidate in the order of merit, thereby defeating the very object for which a waiting list is prepared, namely, to safeguard public interest and ensure that vacant posts are duly filled.

2.3. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is entitled to appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), particularly when one post under the EWS (General Category) is still lying vacant.

2.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Rajkumar Sharma and others, 2006(2) SCT 93 and Raj Rishi Mehra and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2013(12) SCC 243. He also relied upon judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Bikramjit Aroura @ Bikramjit Arora vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others, CWP No.5058 of 2022.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporatio