Civil Writ Petition No. 18204 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 18204 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.08.2010 Pradeep Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. This order will dispose of three Civil Writ Petition Nos. 18204, 14651 of 2009 and 13577 of 2010. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ petition No. 18204 of 2009. A number of petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to adjust them on account of merger of Vocational Education Institutes against the post advertised and to allow the petitioners to continue till regularly selected candidates join. These directions are sought in the background of the order passed in CWP No. 5289 of 2007 decided on 24.01.2008 (Annexure P-13). When this writ petition came up for hearing, Mr. Rathee pointed out that some petitioners had filed Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14651 of 2009 and 13577 of 2010. Perusal of the petitions would Civil Writ Petition No. 18204 of 2009 2 show that the some petitioners are common in these petitions and in Civil Writ Petition No. 18204 of 2004. Prayer made in the CWP No. 14651 of 2009 is for quashing the clauses (ii) and (iv) of Part-II of policy of outsourcing of services/activities as has been circulated being wrong and contrary to judgment rendered by the Court. Main prayer made in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to work on the same terms and conditions as in order Annexure P-13. Similar prayers are made in CWP No. 13577 of 2010. Except for formulating their prayer in some different manner to challenge the policy instructions, ultimate relief claimed in all these writ petitions seems to be similar. Aim is to challenge appointment/condition in terms of conditions of contract of the petitioners. At any rate, the petitioners were under obligation and duty to disclose that they had filed any writ petition claiming any similar relief prior in time. The petitioners have lost their right to be heard on merit, as they have not approached the Court with clean hands and are seen making attempt to mislead. Considering the fact that it is disclosed in the reply that the petitioners are not being replaced in any manner, and that they have since been adjusted, no further orders need to be passed. The writ petition, therefore, dismissed as having become infructuous. August 24 , 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE