CWP No.19679 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19679 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.10.2011 Karam Singh ..... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, ACJ. 1. The prayer made in the writ petition is for issuance of directions to the respondent – State of Punjab to make regular recruitment to the posts like PCS (Executive) as is being done by the Union Public Service Commission and other neighbouring States. It may be true that in the State of Punjab, the posts of PCS (Executive) and allied services are not being filled up but there may be numerous reasons for not doing so. 2. Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate places reliance on Articles 38 & 39 of the Constitution and argued that the policy of the State should be directed towards securing the citizens' right to adequate means of livelihood and also to secure a social order for promotion and welfare of the people. Firstly, directive principles of State Policy in Articles 38 & 39 (A) are not enforceable as they are guidelines for the State to frame its policy to achieve the aforesaid goal. Secondly, the right to adequate means of CWP No.19679 of 2011 -2- livelihood would not be fulfilled by filling up the post of PCS (Executive) as there are large number of other posts in the State which are also required to be filled up. The policy of the State with regard to its finances have to be taken care of by the State itself. There is no law which may guide the Court to come to the conclusion that the State must fill up all its posts or do it at regular intervals. There is no statutory mandate in that regard. It is not unknown that a large number of vacancies, by adopting the policy of disinvestment, have been kept vacant on account of financial stringency. Therefore, the argument raised by the petitioner on the basis of Articles 38 & 39 of the Constitution is far fetched and has no relationship with the prayer made in the instant petition. 3. The writ petition is a frivolous piece of litigation and is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 19.10.2011 manju