IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (232) Anil Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India CORAM : Present: VINOD S.BHARDWAJ post of AG selection process initiated vide advertisement No.3/15 (Annexure P petitioner, to next in waiting, after the last selected candidate. the other hand, was that 413 posts were advertised. The written test was held on 04.10.2015 and final result was published on 30.06.2016 and the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.494 in the waiting was valid for a period of one year and one vacancy remained unfilled in Un-reserved Category whereupon one Vivek, who was at Sr.No.59 in the waiting-list almost 10 years has elapsed since the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD S.BHARDWAJ None for the petitioner (s). Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. VINOD S.BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is to operate the waiting list to the post of AG-III (Depot) from the available vacant/unfilled selection process initiated vide advertisement No.3/15 (Annexure P The matter was adjourned on the request of counsel for the petitioner, to place on record the documents to establish that petitioner was next in waiting, after the last selected candidate. The specific stand of the respondent in the written statement, on the other hand, was that 413 posts were advertised. The written test was held 0.2015 and final result was published on 30.06.2016 and the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.494 in the waiting-list. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the waiting was valid for a period of one year and one vacancy remained unfilled in reserved Category whereupon one Vivek, who was at Sr.No.59 in the list was appointed by 7th wait-list order. almost 10 years has elapsed since the selection IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CWP-4257-2020 Decided on : 05.05.2025 ……Petitioner(s) Versus Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India ……Respondent(s) VINOD S.BHARDWAJ Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. Prayer in the present petition is to operate the waiting list to the III (Depot) from the available vacant/unfilled vacancy in respect selection process initiated vide advertisement No.3/15 (Annexure P-1). The matter was adjourned on the request of counsel for the the documents to establish that petitioner was next in waiting, after the last selected candidate. The specific stand of the respondent in the written statement, on the other hand, was that 413 posts were advertised. The written test was held 0.2015 and final result was published on 30.06.2016 and the petitioner list. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the waiting was valid for a period of one year and one vacancy remained unfilled in reserved Category whereupon one Vivek, who was at Sr.No.59 in the list order. He contends that a period of selection process was initiated in 2015. ……Petitioner(s) ……Respondent(s) Prayer in the present petition is to operate the waiting list to the in respect of The matter was adjourned on the request of counsel for the the documents to establish that petitioner was The specific stand of the respondent in the written statement, on the other hand, was that 413 posts were advertised. The written test was held 0.2015 and final result was published on 30.06.2016 and the petitioner Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the waiting-list was valid for a period of one year and one vacancy remained unfilled in the reserved Category whereupon one Vivek, who was at Sr.No.59 in the He contends that a period of was initiated in 2015. SAILESH RANJAN 2025.05.07 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (232) CWP-4257-2020 -2- It is to be noticed that the afore-said written statement was filed on 25.09.2020 and a period of 4 ½ years has elapsed since then. No counter reply to the written statement has been filed. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the present writ petition any further. Accordingly, the same is dismissed for non-prosecution. Liberty is however granted to the petitioner to seek revival of the instant writ petition in case he can refer to document(s) so at to contradict the stand adopted by the respondent in its written statement. (VINOD S.BHARDWAJ) JUDGE 05.05.2025 Sailesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : Yes/No SAILESH RANJAN 2025.05.07 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document