CM-6459-CWP-2025 in/& -1- CWP-23696-2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CM-6459-CWP-2025 in/& CWP-23696-2014 Date of Decision :03.05.2025 Baljit Singh Dullat ...Petitioner Versus Punjabi University and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. None for the respondents. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-6459-CWP-2025 1. Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by this Court by which, the main writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. Keeping in view the averments made in the applications, which are duly supported by an affidavit, application is allowed. Order dated 18.11.2024 passed by this Court is recalled and the main writ petition is ordered to be restored to its original number and status and is taken up for hearing today itself. CWP-23696-2014 3. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P/16) passed by the respondent-University by AARTI SHARMA 2025.05.05 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-6459-CWP-2025 in/& -2- CWP-23696-2014 which petitioner has been held ineligible for competing for the post of Laboratory Attendant as advertised by the respondent-University vide advertisement dated 20.06.2012 (Annexure P/8). 2. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner joined as Computer Lab Attendant with the Punjab Technical University on 01.05.2009 and worked there as such up to 31.12.2010 at the lumpsum salary of Rs.5000/ per month. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the post of Laboratory attendant and he was appointed as such on 21.06.2011 on contract basis on the salary of Rs.8000/- per month starting from 31.05.2012. While working on the post of Laboratory Attendant, an advertisement dated 20.06.2012 (Annexure P/8) was issued by the respondent-University for the post of Laboratory Attendants and the petitioner applied for the said post and competed in the reserved category of dependent of Ex-serviceman as his father was retired from General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF). The petitioner though, was selected but was not appointed on the ground that the document required to be produced to show that the petitioner is fulfilling the requisites to compete under the category of dependent of Ex-service man has not been produced by the petitioner. The said impugned order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P/16) passed by the respondent-University is under challenge in the present petition. 3. The grievance being raised by the petitioner is that the only reason given for not accepting the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Laboratory Attendant is that the petitioner had not complied with the requisites to compete for the post in question under the reserved category of dependent of Ex-serviceman. AARTI SHARMA 2025.05.05 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-6459-CWP-2025 in/& -3- CWP-23696-2014 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection taken by the respondent-University was that the father of the petitioner was working in General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF), which does not come under the Armed Forces, which is contrary to the settled principle of law. 5. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have appeared and stated that the petitioner has not fulfilled the requisites to compete for the post in question under the reserved category of dependent of ex-serviceman and therefore, as no documents were produced to show the eligibility to compete under the dependent of ex-serviceman category, the claim for appointment to the post of Laboratory Attendant of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent-University and hence, he has not been appointed on the post in question in the said category. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as no one has appeared on behalf of respondent-University. 7. The petitioner conceded the fact that he is not an ex-serviceman and he competed for the post in question under the category of dependent of ex-serviceman. The question which arise is, whether once, the petitioner himself stated in the writ petition that he was working initially with the Punjab Technical University and thereafter, with the Punjabi University, Patiala as Laboratory Attendant and was getting the salary of Rs.8000/-per month, can he be treated as dependent upon his ex-serviceman father so as to be eligible to compete for the post in question under the said category. 8. The petitioner once was working on the same post on contract basis, cannot be said to be dependent upon ex-serviceman as he was already earning more than the minimum wages which has been fixed by the AARTI SHARMA 2025.05.05 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-6459-CWP-2025 in/& -4- CWP-23696-2014 Government. Any person drawing more than the minimum wages, cannot be considered as dependent upon the ex-serviceman parents. 9. Further, the dependent of ex-serviceman can only compete in case, there is a certificate issued by the Zila Sainik Board certifying that a particular candidate is a dependent upon his/her ex-serviceman parents. No such document was ever issued to the petitioner to show that the petitioner was dependent upon an ex-serviceman. 10. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the non-grant of appointment to the petitioner on the post in question under the reserved category of dependent of ex-serviceman is not arbitrary and illegal as the petitioner has failed to produce/fulfill the requisite to compete for the post in question under the category of dependent of ex-serviceman hence, the present petition is dismissed. 11. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of. May 03, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) aarti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No AARTI SHARMA 2025.05.05 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document