CWP(T)No.4148/2008 (OA 46/97) 23.3.2009 Present: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, vice counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. for respondent No. 3. For the post of Conductor, the petitioner’s name was sponsored on five different occasions by the Employment Exchange to the respondent-Corporation. Unfortunately as has been alleged, examination for atleast three occasions was cancelled. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, however, has clarified that it was only once that the interview in the year 1992 was cancelled. The fact of the matter is that petitioner could not be selected for the said post. The respondent-Corporation again sent a requisition for filling up the post of a Conductor, some time in the year 1996. In terms of the prevalent policy, such of those persons whose names stood sponsored on more than five occasions were not to be sponsored and considered. This was so done keeping in view the “single chance rotation system” adopted by the Directorate of Labour and Employment, State of Himachal Pradesh which is evident from the letter dated 31st May, 1993 (Annexure RI-A). The petition was filed in the year 1996 and no interim directions were passed. In my considered view with the passage of time the petition has become infructuous and no relief as -2- prayed for can be granted. No fresh interview for a post which was to be filled up in the year 1996 can be held now. The appointment made in the year 1996 cannot be quashed in public interest, at this stage. That apart the petitioner has got no legally enforceably right of being considered for the post which was required to be filled up in the year 1996. Ms. Nidhi Sharma, learned vice counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, H.P. Versus K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others (1996) 6 SCC 216, to contend that keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision, direction for considering petitioner’s name for future appointment ought to be issued. In the said decision the Apex Court was dealing with the case where the names of certain persons, for filling up 723 posts had not been sponsored through the Employment Exchange. These persons approached the Tribunal and certain interim directions/order were passed directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners. In view of the interim orders passed by the Tribunal the Apex Court did not interfere. But however it observed that wider publicity be given for filling up the posts and not restrict -3- it only to those candidates whose names stood sponsored by the Employment Exchange. There cannot be any dispute on the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court, but however, it does not advance the petitioner’s case any further. In the present case no interim directions were issued and the clock cannot be turned back. No further order can be passed in the present petition save and except that if the petitioner is otherwise found eligible for filling up of the next vacant post, the respondents shall also consider his name and make selection in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 23, 2009 (PK)