The Punjab and Haryana High Court (Chandigarh Bench) ruled that removing candidates who have already served and are serving the Punjab State Power Corporation (respondent organisation) for nearly five years, and carrying out their duties effectively, based on a legal notice challenging their appointments made way back to be illegal and improper, is completely impractical considering the substantial period that has passed.
The Court emphasised that disturbing such appointments at a very late stage, as happened in the present case, would not only affect the public interest but also cause significant disruption to both the organisation and the public at large, given the experience they have acquired during their tenure.
The Court therefore dismissed the petition, holding that it would be unfair and against the public interest to nonsuit the persons appointed in the year 2020 after gaining 05 years of experience. The Court added that the law cannot protect and foster a fence-sitter, as one cannot approach the Court at the time of their convenience and whim.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar noted that the advertisement carrying the impugned clause of the preference of apprenticeship was advertised on October 03, 2019, and the tentative merit list was first released in July 2020, which was first challenged in the year 2018, and then twice in the year 2020, resulting in favourable orders from the Coordinate Bench.
Thus, the Bench found that the issue involved in the present case was brought thrice before this Court, but the petitioners remained indolent and arose only on August 20, 2025, by filing a legal notice for the first time.
The Single Judge pointed out that much water has flown since the respondent/Corporation initiated the selection process four times by issuing various advertisements for the posts of Assistant Lineman, and the petitioners have not impleaded any of the selected candidates appointed in the year 2020, who are already serving as Assistant Linemen for nearly five years.
Briefly, the first petitioner, belonging to the BC category and the second petitioner, belonging to the General category, possessing the qualification of an ITI diploma in the electrician trade, and having undergone 02 years of apprenticeship in the trade of Lineman, claimed eligibility for appointment to the post of Assistant Lineman, in terms of Punjab State Electricity Board Technical Services Class-III Regulations, 1996.
When the Punjab State Power Corporation (respondent) issued an advertisement for filling up 3500 similar posts, they inserted a condition providing preference to the candidates having an apprenticeship in the trade of lineman from PSPCL/PSTCL or the erstwhile PSEB. As the petitioners were not considered for appointment, the similarly situated candidates filed a petition, which was allowed, holding the action of the respondent/Corporation to be illegal and arbitrary. Now, the present petitioners approached the Court claiming to be more meritorious than those already serving the respondent/Corporation.
Appearances:
Advocate H.S. Saini, for the Petitioner
Advocate Shwas Bajaj and Palika Monga, for the Respondent
