Civil Writ Petition No.11145 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: July 28, 2009 Sudhir Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & another ....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.Pawan Khattak, Advocate, for Mr.Raman B.Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner, who is working as a District Attorney, seeks direction for considering his case for confirmation on the post of District Attorney in view of the rule position contained in Haryana State Prosecution Legal Services (Group-A) Rules, 1979 (for short “1979 Rules”) and the policy instructions dated 15.12.1971 and 31.12.2002, Annexures P-9 and P-10, respectively. In the alternative, the petitioner prays that mandamus be issued to the respondents to confirm him on the post of Deputy District Attorney w.e.f. 1.9.2006 on Civil Writ Petition No.11145 of 2009 : 2 : availability of permanent post keeping in view the rule and the policy instructions afore-mentioned. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy District Attorney on 3.9.1993. This appointment was against temporary post. He successfully completed the probation period in September, 1995. The maximum probation period, being three years, as per the petitioner could be extended till 9.9.1996. Submission is that on completion of the probation period, the petitioner was required to be confirmed from the said date. The confirmation could be from the date when permanent vacancy came into being if the petitioner was appointed against temporary vacancy. 1979 Rules were replaced by other rules, similarly named, in the year 2001 and may be called 2001 Rules. The petitioner would aver that as per the gradation list, 25 permanent posts of Deputy District Attorneys are shown to be existing and vacant as on 1.5.2004. The petitioner is at Sr.No.37 in the list of officiating Deputy District Attorneys. It is stated that on retirement of one Mahavir Parshad Verma on 31.8.2006, the name of the petitioner would come to Sr.No.25 in the list of officiating Deputy District Attorneys. It is, thus, stated that w.e.f. 1.9.2006, a permanent post of Deputy District Attorney became available for the petitioner for being confirmed on the said post. He could have been so confirmed as he has otherwise been promoted as District Attorney on 20.5.2004 and was posted in the office of Director General of Police, Haryana. On the basis of rule position, the petitioner would say that his probation on the post of District Attorney could maximum be extended till 20.5.2007 as three years is the period prescribed for probation. It is also pleaded that respondent No.1 is under obligation Civil Writ Petition No.11145 of 2009 : 3 : to declare that the petitioner has successfully completed the probation period even if the permanent post is not available on the day he completed three years i.e., 20.5.2007. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner has also averred that there are 22 permanent posts of District Attorneys. 14 senior most District Attorneys have been confirmed on 1.8.2008 and as such 8 permanent posts are still available for confirmation. Reference is also made to the gradation list which would show that 34 temporary posts of District Attorney were sanctioned on 1.4.2004 and, thus, these temporary posts were increased to 41 during November, 2007. It is then pleaded that all temporary posts which have been in existence in the department for five years or more and where the work is of continuing nature, then these should be made permanent by the administrative department. Grievance is that the competent authority had failed to take any steps to convert any of the temporary post in the cadre of District Attorney into permanent post. Giving this break up of these vacancies, the petitioner pleads that he is at Sr.No.17 after 14 District Attorneys were confirmed and, thus, his case deserves to be considered for confirmation. The petitioner claims to have made representation on 31.1.2009 for his confirmation on the post of Deputy District Attorney with a further request to convert temporary posts of District Attorneys as permanent posts in view of the policy decision, but still the respondents have failed to take action on his representation. From the afore-mentioned facts, it can be noticed that the petitioner has a long drawn list of grievances. He first prays for his confirmation as Deputy District Attorney on completion of 3 years service, which is from 9.9.1996. His prayer also is that the vacancy Civil Writ Petition No.11145 of 2009 : 4 : would be available for his confirmation as Deputy District Attorney w.e.f. 1.9.2006 which has not been done. The petitioner has not been able to show if there is any order declining his confirmation. He has not placed the material on record to indicate the existence of actual state of vacancies. In the absence of any order of which the petitioner could feel aggrieved, the case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not be made out. In fact, the cause made by the petitioner in the writ petition seems to be pre-mature. His prayer for converting the temporary posts, which are in existence for the last five years, to permanent posts in terms of the policy is a prayer which apparently cannot be granted. Policy decisions, which are executive in nature, cannot be enforced unless they violate any provision of the Constitution on account of any action taken. As already noticed, no action has been taken which could be tested on the touch stone being arbitrary or discriminatory or one which would go to violate any legal or constitutional right of the petitioner. There is, thus, no cause made out by the petitioner for exercise of writ jurisdiction. In the representation also, prayer is for converting temporary posts to permanent, which would not give any enforceable legal or constitutional rights in favour of the petitioner. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction and would dismiss the petition in limine. Dismissed. July 28, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No.11145 of 2009 : 5 :