CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2130 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 20, 2010 Bharat Bhushan & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. I. P. Goyat, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners are the selected candidates in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch and Allied Services) examination held pursuant to the advertisement issued on 24.1.2004. Their selection is under a clout and the matter has also been referred for enquiry by Vigilance. The cause for filing the present writ petition is an advertisement now issued for filling up the vacancies of H.C.S. (Executive Branch) and allied services in the State, for which the petitioners were selected but were not appointed because of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2130 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: enquiry. Their grievance is that on the one hand the State is not completing the vigilance enquiry, which is in progress for the last so many years and on the other hand, the State has started the process of filling up the posts, for which the petitioners were selected. Plea is that if the State is allowed to fill up the posts, the rights of the petitioners for appointment would be seriously prejudiced. The petitioners have, therefore, filed this writ petition for issuing direction to the State to complete the vigilance enquiry and for restraining the State from filling up the post till completion of enquiry. The Prayer made by the petitioners for restraining the respondents from filling up the post was negated by this Court vide its order dated 21.4.2009 by observing as under:- “In my opinion no case has been made out for stalling the selection. It must be kept in mind that in a controversy regarding a public appointment it is not only the interests of the candidates or the employer but also the interests of the public which have to be kept in mind. It is not in public interest that essential public posts should be kept vacant while the question regarding a particular selection is still under probe. Having said that it also cannot be gainsaid that in case ultimately the applicants are exonerated, their non-appointment would cause them great prejudice. However, I have no doubt in mind that in that eventuality this Court or the Government would make some arrangement to vindicate the interests of such applicants who are exonerated in the case.” The only prayer, thus, which would now survive in the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2130 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: petition is for completing the vigilance enquiry. Though the State had initially not come up with any firm stand in this regard but ultimately when directed to have instructions, an affidavit has been filed that the enquiry would be completed within a period of six months. That being the position, nothing would survive in the petition. The counsel for the petitioners still insisted on making submission in regard to the right of the petitioners for appointment to the posts, for which they were selected. Needless to observe that the selection being under clout, the appointment would depend upon the outcome of the enquiry. It may also need a notice that the petitioners had earlier approached the Supreme Court and the action of the State in directing enquiry to go into the appointment was upheld. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly observed that the vigilance enquiry initiated to go into the whole matter be allowed to continue and the disinclination on the part of the State to make appointment was not found with any fault. The Supreme Court has also observed that the petitioners may take recourse to other remedies available to them under law if there was any subsequent event, while disposing of the application seeking clarification of the order. Obviously, any change in position can possibly be after conclusion of Vigilance enquiry. Nothing, thus, would survive in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The rights of the petitioners to have their remedy in case selection is not found with fault during the vigilance enquiry has already been protected while rejecting the prayer for interim order. August 20, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE