Dismissed¶18

Anil v. Chairman and Managing Director ,Food Corporation of India

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2025CWP/4257/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution; FCI AG-III (Depot) recruitment; Advertisement No.3/15; waiting-list validity of one year; petitioner at Sr.No.494; one Vivek (Sr.No.59) appointed by 7th wait-list order against unfilled Un-reserved Category vacancy; 413 posts advertised; written test 04.10.2015; final result 30.06.2016; liberty to seek revival; CWP-4257-2020; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to seek revival of the instant writ petition in case he can refer to document(s) so as to contradict the stand adopted by the respondent in its written statement. ¶18

Anil Vs Chairman and Managing Director ,Food Corporation of India — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to seek revival of the instant writ petition in case he can refer to document(s) so as to contradict the stand adopted by the respondent in its written statement.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the waiting list arising from the selection process initiated vide Advertisement No.3/15 should be operated against the available vacant/unfilled vacancy for the post of AG-III (Depot) in favour of the petitioner.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Finding that the petitioner appeared not to be interested in pursuing the writ petition, the Court dismissed it for non-prosecution, granting liberty to seek revival if the petitioner produces document(s) contradicting the stand adopted by the respondent in its written statement.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (CWP-4257-2020, decided 05.05.2025, Vinod S. Bhardwaj J., oral) — Anil v. Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India. The petition prayed for operation of the waiting list to the post of AG-III (Depot) from the available vacant/unfilled vacancy arising out of the selection process initiated vide Advertisement No.3/15 (Annexure P-1). Per the respondent's written statement: 413 posts were advertised; the written test was held on 04.10.2015; the final result was published on 30.06.2016; and the petitioner stood at Sr.No.494 in the waiting-list, which was valid for one year. The sole unfilled Un-reserved Category vacancy was filled by appointing one Vivek (Sr.No.59 in the waiting-list) by the 7th wait-list order, and almost 10 years had elapsed since the selection process began in 2015. The written statement was filed on 25.09.2020, 4½ years before decision; no counter reply was filed and there was no representation for the petitioner. Holding the petitioner not interested in pursuing the petition, the Court DISMISSED it for non-prosecution, granting liberty to seek revival upon production of document(s) contradicting the respondent's stand. The substantive issue of operating the waiting list was not decided.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

(232) CWP-4257-2020 Decided on : 05.05.2025

¶3

Anil ……Petitioner(s )

¶4

Versu s

¶5

Chairman & Managing Director, Food Co rp oration of India

¶6

……Respondent ( s)

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD S.BHARDWAJ

¶8

Present: None for the petitioner (s).

¶9

Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶10

VINOD S.BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶11

Prayer in the present petition is to operate the waiting list t o the post of A G -III (Depot) from the available v acant/unfilled vacancy in respe c t of selection p r ocess initiated vide advertisem e nt No.3/15 (Annexure P-1).

¶12

The matter was adjourned o n the request of counsel for the petitioner, to place on record the docum e nts to establish that petitioner was next in wa i ting, after the last selected cand i date.

¶13

The specific stand of the res p ondent in the written statemen t , on the other h and, was that 413 posts were a d vertised. The written test was h eld on 04.10.2 0 15 and final result was publis h ed on 30.06.2016 and the petiti o ner was place d at Sr.No.494 in the waiting-list .

¶14

Learned counsel for the resp o ndent submits that the waitin g -list was valid f or a period of one year and o n e vacancy remained unfilled i n the Un-reserv e d Category whereupon one V ivek, who was at Sr.No.59 in the waiting-lis t was appointed by 7^th wait-list order. He contends that a peri o d of almost 10 y ears has elapsed since the selec t ion process was initiated in 2015.

¶15

SAILESH RANJAN 2025.05.07 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

(232) CWP-4257-2020 -2-

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

(VINOD S.BHARDWAJ) JUDGE 05.05.2025 Sailesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶20

SAILESH RANJAN 2025.05.07 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Anil v. Chairman and Managing Director ,Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil v. Chairman and Managing Director ,Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roop Ram Nagal and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ravi Punia and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Narender Lather and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Mam Chand Gupta Vs State of Haryana

Pardeep Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs Food Corporation of India & Ors.

Krishan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.