CWP-30334-2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-30334-2018 (O&M) SONU ..Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ..Respondents Reserved on: 23.07.2026 Pronounced on : 29.07.2026 Uploaded on : 31.07.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab. * * * * * SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. 1. The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to join from the date of offer of appointment i.e. from the year 2016. And further to pay the salary from the same date along with interest @ 18%. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that offer of appointment was given to the petitioner in the year 2016 i.e. on 06.09.2016 and during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner was appointed in the year 2019 and has joined on 08.03.2019. He further contends that since offer was made in the year 2016, therefore, he is entitled to salary for the period 2016 to 2019 along with 18% interest. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.31 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-30334-2018 (O&M) -2- 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that petitioner was issued only offer of appointment and due to shortage of vacancy he was not appointed. And appointment letter was issued to him on 06.03.2019 which was accepted by the petitioner and he joined his duty on 08.03.2019 in the office of Executive Engineer, Shahpurkandi Dam Division No.1, Shahpurkandi Township. She therefore, contends that since the petitioner joined in the year 2019, therefore, he would not be entitled for any salary for the period he was not appointed. She therefore, prays that the present writ petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance. 5. A perusal of the file shows that the State of Punjab framed policy for rehabilitation and resettlement of the oustees of Ranjit Sagar Dam for which various rehabilitation packages were introduced. The main and one of the rehabilitation measure was to appoint one member of the family of the landless and effected family according to the qualification and availability of vacancies on the project. 6. That as per the policy one eligible member of the family whose land was acquired was to provided employment by the State Government according to qualification on the project. A committee was constituted for appointment in view of the policy dated 18.11.1993. The record of the petitioner was verified and petitioner was found eligible for the appointment under Oustee Quota as per the policy dated 18.11.1993. 7. That the respondent no.3 issued offer of appointment to the petitioner as Class-IV employee vide letter dated 06.09.2016. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.31 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-30334-2018 (O&M) -3- 8. It would be apposite to reproduce the offer letter dated 06.09.2016:- “In pursuance of R&R Policy of 1993 circulated by the Deputy Commissioner, Rehabilitation & Resettlement, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpurkandi Township vide letter No 645-657/D.C./K&R/ Pb./1993 dated 18.11.1993 & amendment issued by the Punjab Govt. vide memo No. 11/114/2009-PJ(5)/2689 dated 07.09.2012 and also minutes of meeting held on dated 17-4-2012 under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Chief Secretary to Govt. of Punjab sent vide Punjab Govt. Memo No.4/38/2012 (Vol- 3)-PJ(5)/23978/1 dated 22.2.2013 which was further endorsed vide Chief Engineer/SPK Dam Project, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Shahpurkandi letter No70-71/PA/CE/SPK Dam dated.22.2.2013, you are hereby offered a purely temporary post of Class-IV employee in the Pay Band of Rs.4900- 10680+1650 grade pay per month plus usual allowances sanctioned from time to time by the Govt. of Punjab. ਪੰਜਾਬ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਦੇ ਪਤੱਰ ਨੰ .7/204/2012-4 ਐਫ.ਪੀ-1/66 ਿਮਤੀ 15/1/15 ਰਾਹੀ ਜਾਰੀ ਹਦਾਇਤਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਆਪ 2 ਸਾਲ ਪਰਖ ਕਾਲ ਦੇ ਅਧੀਨ ਰਹੇਗਾ ਜੇਕਰ ਇਸ ਸਮੇ ਦੋਰਾਨ ਆਪ ਦਾ ਕੰਮ ਅਤੇ ਚਾਲ ਚਲਣ ਤਸਲੀ ਬਕਸ਼ ਨਾ ਹੋਇਆ ਤਾ ਇਹ ਪਰਖ ਕਾਲ ਦਾ ਸਮਾ ਵਧਾਇਆ ਵੀ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ । ਇਸ ਪਰਖ ਕਾਲ ਦੇ ਸਮੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਕੇਵਲ ਪੈ ਬੈਡ 4900/- ਰੁਪਏ ਬਝਵੀ ਤਨਖਾਹ ਹੀ ਿਦਤੀ ਜਾਵੇਗੀ ਇਸ ਸਮੇ ਕੋਈ ਵੀ ਗ(ੇਡ ਪੈ ਸਲਾਨਾ ਤਰਕੀ ਜਾ ਹੋਰ ਕੋਈ ਭੱਤੇ ਸਵਾਏ ਸਵਹੀ ਭੱਤ ੇ ਦ ੇ ਿਮਲਨ ਯੋਗ ਨਹੀ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ 1. This offer is subject to the following terms and conditions:- That you will be governed under the Punjab Civil Services Rules & New Restructured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme for New entrants to Punjab Government Service would also be applicable on you and any subsequent instructions issued by the Punjab Govt. from time to time. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.31 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-30334-2018 (O&M) -4- 2. That as per instructions/directions issued by the Punjab Government, Department of Irrigation, from time to time, and your services can be terminated at any time without any notice. 3. That you have to submit the stereo No. 112-13 at the time of joining duty (Copy enclosed). 4. That no liability in respect of your past service will be entertained 5. That no Travelling Allowance/Daily Allowance will be paid for the purpose of reporting for duty. 6. That your pay and other allowances shall commence after issuance of final appointment letter & on submission of your joining report. 7. That you will be liable to work anywhere in any of the Department of Punjab Government. Your services can be transferred in any Department/Board/Corporation of Punjab State. 8. That in case you are found ineligible at any later stage the appointment will be cancelled. 9. That you will be governed by Punjab Civil Services Rules and regulations, administrative instructions etc., applicable to establishment issued from time to time by the competent authority. 10. That you shall bring with you Academic qualification Certificate along with four Nos recent passport size photographs. You should also bring your Certificate of proof of age showing date of birth at the time of joining. In case you are a member of Schedule Caste/Backward class, you should also bring a proper certificate from the competent authority. In case any document/certificate is found incorrect & fake, your services are liable to be terminated. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.31 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-30334-2018 (O&M) -5- 11. That in case you Character & Antecedents duly verified by the Civil Authorities are not found correct/satisfactory, your service will be terminated without any notice. 12. Regarding medical fitness certificate, decision shall be taken by final appointing authority. 13. An affidavit to the effect may be produced before joining the duty in the concerned office:- i. That you have not more than one living wife. ii. That you have not been dismissed from any Govt. Service/ Organisation previously. iii. That you have not been sentenced by any court of law. iv. That all the terms & conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment by the Department are acceptable. v. That no other family member has been provided employment Under the Dam Outsees Quota. In case you decide not to accept the appointment as above yourself Personally, you are hereby called upon to nominate one member of your family for the purpose of appointment, who should produce similar documents and affidavit. Your response to the offer of appointment nomination of one member of family Shall reach in this office within 30 days from the date of issue of this letter. You shall submit your arrival report in the office where your name shall be referred by the Financial Commissioner (Surplus Pool) Govt. of Punjab Mini Secretariat Sector-9, Ground Floor, Chandigarh depending upon vacancy within 15 days from the date of issue of final appointment letter failing which letter of appointment will be considered as cancelled.” MOHD AYUB 2026.07.31 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-30334-2018 (O&M) -6- 9. The petitioner on the basis of above referred to offer of appointment is asking for the salary from the period from offer of appointment till actual appointment. Officer of appointment as reproduced above itself shows that offer was upon the vacancy and thereafter, the final appointment letter would be issued. The petitioner was never issued final appointment letter. He for the first time was issued appointment letter on 06.03.2019 and he joined his duty at Shahpurkandi Dam Project on 08.03.2019. Offer of appointment cannot be treated as appointment letter and employee does not have vested right over the post. And admittedly, letter dated 06.09.2016 was offer of appointment and not appointment letter. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 30.04.1991 titled as Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, 1991 INSC 120 held that a candidate whose name appeared in merit list acquired no indefeasible right of appointment if a vacancy arose by non-joining of some candidate. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 07.10.2020 titled as Commissioner of Police and Anr. Vs. Umesh Kumar, Air 2020 Supreme Court 4786 held as under:- “14. The real issue, however, is whether the respondents were entitled to a writ of mandamus. This would depend on whether they have a vested right of appointment. Clearly the answer to this must be in the negative. In Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh (2005) 9 SCC 22, this Court held that the mere inclusion of candidate in a selection list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment. The Court held: "4. ..the High Court committed an error in proceeding on the basis that the respondent had got a vested right for appointment and that could not have been taken away by the subsequent change in the policy. It is settled law that MOHD AYUB 2026.07.31 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-30334-2018 (O&M) -7- mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list does not confer on such candidate any vested right to get an order of appointment. This position is made clear in para 7 of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95] which reads: (SCC pp. 50-51) "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] , Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] ." (emphasis supplied)" In the present case, after the name of respondents appeared in the results declared on 17 July 2015, the process of recruitment was put in abeyance since the results were challenged before the Tribunal. The process of revising the results during the course of the recruitment was necessitated to align it in accordance with law. An MOHD AYUB 2026.07.31 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-30334-2018 (O&M) -8- Expert Committee was specifically appointed following the institution of proceedings before the Tribunal. The report of the Expert Committee established errors in the answer key, and thereafter a conscious decision was taken, after evaluating the report, to revise the results on 1 February 2016. In the fresh list which was drawn up, both the respondents have admittedly failed to fulfil the cut-off for the OBC category to which they belong. As the learned ASG submitted before the Court, as many as 228 candidates are ranked above Umesh Kumar on merit while 265 candidates stand above Satyendra Singh. The submission of Mr Khurshid that these are the only two candidates before this Court would not entitle them to a direction contrary to law since they had no vested right to appointment.” 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 07.10.2020 titled as State of Karnataka Vs. Santhosh Kumar C, 2026 INSC 276 held that vacancy left unfilled due to non-reporting cannot be claimed as of right by any candidate from the same selection process. 13. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above, and since the petitioner was never issued any appointment letter in the year 2016, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 29.07.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2026.07.31 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.