CWP-19230-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19230-2026 Date of decision: 19.06.2026 Mahavir Sharma ...Pe!!oner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Amarjit Kaur, Advocate for the pe!!oner. Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Sr. Panel Counsel for UOI. Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Addi!onal Standing Counsel with Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of this pe!!on filed under Ar!cles 226/227 of the Cons!tu!on of India, pe!!oner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, especially in the nature of mandamus, direc!ng the respondents to consider his candidature for appointment to the post of Store Officer as raised vide representa!on dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) pursuant to the recruitment no!ce (Annexure P-7) issued by the respondents and also grant due weightage and preference to the long service experience, departmental knowledge and prac!cal exposure a@ached to the du!es to the post of Store Officer by the pe!!oner while considering his candidature for appointment. 2. It is submi@ed by learned counsel that pe!!oner was appointed as Divisional Assistant in Chandigarh State AIDS Control Society, Chandigarh on contractual basis vide appointment le@er dated 23.12.2011 and he joined in January 2012. pe!!oner has been con!nuously serving YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.19 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19230-2026 [2] since then. Now the respondents have issued an adver!sement for recruitment to the post of Store Officer. Pe!!oner submits that since he is con!nuously working in the Store since January 2012, therefore, he should be considered for the post of Store Officer straightway without par!cipa!ng in the recruitment process. Pe!!oner has made a representa!on dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) to consider his candidature for appointment to the post of Store Officer with his pay protec!on. 3. No!ce of mo!on. 4. Sh. Vipul Aggarwal, Sr. Panel Counsel, accepts no!ce on behalf of respondent No.1-UOI and informs that pe!!oner has already applied along with others for the recruitment purpose and that the applica!on is under scru!ny at this stage. 5. On a specific query, learned counsel for the pe!!oner is unable to convince this Court as to whether the pos!ng of the pe!!oner on contractual basis in December 2011 on a post different than the post adver!sed, shall create any right in his favour. In the circumstances, the direc!ons as sought by the pe!!oner does not deserve to be issued. 6. Dismissed. 19.06.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.19 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document