IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.353 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.5.2009 Haryana State Electricity Board & others. -----Appellants Vs. Ram Niwas and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. ------ ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred under Clause X of Letters Patent against judgment of learned Single Judge, quashing order of the appellant dated 6.9.1995. By the said order, the appellants sought to revert the contesting respondents from the posts of Junior Engineers to the posts occupied by them prior to their appointment to the said posts. 2. Case of the writ petitioners was that they were working on posts lower to the post of Junior Engineers. Having obtained qualification of degree, they were given appointments as Junior Engineers, against the quota of direct recruits to the said posts, as per policy of the appointment dated 10.10.1988. The LPA Nos.353 of 2009 proposal was duly approved vide order dated 9.11.1990, Annexure P-5. Claim for appointment to same posts, made by another employee namely Siri Pal, was rejected in C.W.P. No.15442 of 1993, with the observation that if any other person has been promoted, the said Siri Pal could point out the same to the authorities. The matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was disposed of on 9.1.1995 being Civil Appeal No.722 of 1995. The issue whether promotion given to other persons was valid was also considered and stand of the appellants was that the contesting respondents were not promoted but were appointed against quota for direct recruits. However, procedure for regular appointment applicable to appointment of a direct recruit had not been followed. The Board undertook to recall the appointments and accordingly, passed order dated 6.9.1995. 3. Learned Single Judge observed that contention of the appellants that the contesting respondents were given promotion was not correct. The contesting respondents were given direct appointments and as direct recruits, their appointment was valid as per policy dated 10.10.1988. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that even if the contesting respondents were directly recruited being eligible, their appointments were not valid in absence of advertisement and selection process, which is mandatory for any public appointment. Though the submission is correct, we do not 2 LPA Nos.353 of 2009 find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, having regard to the fact that the contesting respondents have worked on the posts for the last 19 years. It is not disputed that even on their own turn, they would have got promotion to the posts to which they were promoted. After giving appointments, the appellants sought to cancel the same by way of demotion/reversion vide order dated 6.9.1995. Thereafter, the matter has remained pending and the contesting respondents remained working on the posts. In these circumstances, irrespective of merits, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE May 15, 2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) ashwani JUDGE 3