IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CACP No.8 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.9.2009 Rajan Gupta & others. -----Appellants Vs. Monika. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. M.L. Saggar, Addl.A.G., Haryana. for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing as under:- “The plea taken by the respondents at this stage when they have been asked to explain their conduct findings that their earlier stand is not correct is, thus, contemptuous and contrary to the earlier affidavit filed. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the right of any other candidates has crystallized into appointment. The petitioner cannot be denied appointment against the vacant posts of Art & Craft Teacher which are admittedly available with the respondents. The non-compliance of the judgment of this Court only on the supposition that there might be some other similarly situated persons also who might have applied to the Commission and their, CACP No.8 of 2009 candidature might have been rejected finding them ineligible, cannot be accepted. In these circumstances, let a specific affidavit be filed whether any specify direction has been given by this Court or any other competent court of jurisdiction to the respondents in any of the matter to re- determine the seniority of the eligible candidates out of the applicants, in addition to the petitioners and further that if any other candidate who is higher in merit than the petitioner has filed any case till today before this Court.” 2. The respondent had challenged her being declared ineligible for the post of Art and Craft Teacher for which advertisement dated 7.11.2003, to fill up 664 posts, was issued. Case of the respondent was that she had three years diploma as against the requirement of two years diploma and could not be declared to be ineligible. Vide judgment dated 6.5.2008, Annexure A-1, the respondent was declared eligible. She had already been interviewed under an interim order. Accordingly, direction was issued to appoint the respondent to the post of Art and Craft Teacher against unfilled vacancies, which were held to be available. The said direction was modified by subsequent order dated 20.3.2009 to the effect that appointment be given to the respondent as per her merit determined by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. 3. The respondent filed contempt petition for willful disobedience of order dated 6.5.2008. The appellants contested 2 CACP No.8 of 2009 the contempt petition by stating that the respondent was lower in merit. 4. Learned Single Judge held that the respondent could not be denied appointment against vacant posts which were available, unless right of any other person to appointment had crystallized. Accordingly, the impugned direction was issued. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 6. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that there are persons higher in merit to the respondent and thus, the respondent could not be given appointment, as writ petitions are pending at the instance of some other candidates. 7. There is no merit in this contention. If case of the appellants is that on account of any decision any other candidate with higher merit had acquired right to appointment, the appellants have been given opportunity in the impugned order to file such affidavit. In absence thereof, there is no justification for not complying with order dated 6.5.2008 as modified vide order dated 20.3.2009. 8. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 16, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3