IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9858 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.02.2011 Raj Pal Singh etc. ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana etc. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 7. RANJIT SINGH J. This case has long drawn history. This is third round of litigation filed by the petitioners before this Court. The petitioners had initially approached this Court in 1993 and their petition was disposed of with the direction that the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Cane Kamdar be considered due to increase in number of vacancies from 25 to 36. Subsequently again, the petitioners approached this Court through CWP No. 11156 of 2003, which was dismissed. However, the direction was issued to the respondents to fill up the post of Cane Kamdar on the basis of seniority subject to the policy of reservation as applicable. The petitioners are now again before this Court on the ground that the seniority has been ignored while considering the respondents for appointment. Their appointment has been stayed by way of interim measure. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn to Annexure P-11 to point out that the persons considered for appointment are junior to the petitioners, as per the seniority list, which has also been Civil Writ Petition No. 9858 of 2009 -2- placed on record. It may appear that the persons, who are considered for appointment are junior to the petitioners. To explain the same, the counsel for the private respondents, however, says that the respondents, who have been considered for appointment, belong to the reserved category whereas the petitioners are from General category. Counsel for the petitioners submits that one of the petitioners are from General category and some are from reserved category but there is no averment in this regard contained in the writ petition. Since this Court had dismissed the earlier petition filed by the petitioners but with the directions as noticed, which order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but has acquired finality as SLP was dismissed. The appointment, if any, now has to be made keeping in view the reservation policy. Since none of the petitioners has been able to show that he/they belong to reserved category, the appointment of the private respondents would not call for any interference. Counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, prays for time to file an affidavit to indicate that some of the petitioners are belonging to reserved category. In my view, appropriate course would be, to give liberty to these petitioners, who are from reserved category to file a fresh petition challenging the appointment of any junior candidate similarly situated. The present writ petition, however, is dismissed. February 14, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE