- (1.) JAGDISH Bhalla, J. Through this writ petition the petitioner prays for a direction in the nature of mandamus to command the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner as Shamik as he was selected by the department.
(2.) THE petitioner applied for the post of Shramik which is class IV and by an order contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Petitioner was selected and called upon to submit two character certificates and to present himself before the Chief Medical Officer for a medical check-up within a period of two weeks. THE petitioner presented himself before the Chief Medical Officer who examined him and issued a certificate of medical fitness on 5th of December, 1990. THE petitioner filled up the declaration form supplied by the department and submitted it along with the character certificates and fitness certificate. Thus the petitioner com plied with the orders contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition and had become entitled for the appointment. Since the petitioner was not allowed to join, it appears the petitioner approached the State Government and even the State Government by its letter No. 335 P. A. dated 20th August, 1991 directed the authorities to allow the petitioner to join. It is surprising that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was duly selected and was found medically fit and the direction of the State to allow him to join and issue him a letter of appointment, the authorities turned a deaf year and no order of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the non-issuance of any appointment letter the peti tioner had no alternative except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From a perusal of Annexure 1 it appears that it is an offer of appointment subject to certain conditions. Since the conditions were ful filled the authorities cannot go back from the promise. Therefore it is hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In this connection we may cite the decision in the case of Bhim Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 673. In which it was held that "the appellants having believed the representation made by the State and having further acted upon cannot be defeated of their hopes which have crystallized into rights by virtue of 'the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Therefore, it is not open to the State to back track. It is bound to confer such rights and benefits as were promised by it in entirety".
(3.) ACCORDING to the Constitution of India the petitioner has fundamental right to work and once the work is offered by the authorities covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the conditions are also fulfilled, then the petitioner becomes entitled for the appointment. For non-issuance of appointment letter in the year 1990, five valuable years of at young man have been wasted as stated by the learn ed counsel for the petitioner who have faced unemployment during this long period. The learned counsel for the respondents who has given up the right of filing a counter affidavit states that it has not come by way of affidavit that all these years the petitioner was unemployed. It is unfortunate that the respondent, a Government undertaking, is not coming forward to file counter affidavit and thereafter has given up its right of filing counter affidavit. We take serious notice of the conduct of the respondents for not filing the counter affidavit. In an identical matter i e in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 320755 of 1991 Isratullah v. Maha Prabandhak and another, also no counter affidavit was filed and the writ petition was allowed by order dated 13th April, 1992. The petitioner of the said petition was identically placed as petitioner and is working thereafter but because of the pendency of this writ petition for certain reasons best known to the authorities the present petitioner was not issued appointment letter to work. In view of the above the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. We direct the respondents to issue formal letter of appointment within a period of three days from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment forthwith and allow the petitioner to join within a period of 24 hours. In case the petitioner has crossed the age of appoint ment, the authorities are directed to condone the same in issuing the letter of appointment. Petition allowed. .;