IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9456 of 2008 Date of decision:11.05.2010 Rajesh Kumar ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents 1 to 3. Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the order of appointment which was made in favour of the 4th respondent on a claim that since the name of the petitioner and the 4th respondent as well as the respective fathers' name were same, what was intended to be issued in favour of the petitioner, was wrongly taken by the authorities as an order in favour of the 4th respondent. The fact that the 4th respondent's father was already working in the very same office was taken advantage of and the father had passed the order that was made to benefit the petitioner in the hands of the 4th respondent to claim appointment. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the non-appointment in Civil Writ Petition No.10748 Civil Writ Petition No. 9456 of 2008 - 2 - of 2007. At that time, the petitioner states, he had not known that there was a case of impersonation of the 4th respondent and, therefore, he rested his claim only on the basis that his non-selection was wrong. The contention in defence in the earlier writ petition by the Municipal Committee was that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criterion for selection. The alleged number of days that he was working during the strike period was only 16 days and such number of days of working did not fulfill the necessary eligibility criterion. The present contention is that even the 4th respondent has been appointed only on the same basis of alleged work during the strike period when he could not have really worked since he was less than 18 years of age and he could not have worked for any period during the strike. The issue whether the 4th respondent could have been validly appointed is not a matter that could avail to the petitioner to contend that he should be appointed. It appears that the 4th respondent's appointment itself was set aside by the authorities which is the subject of an independent challenge in a writ petition in Civil Writ Petition No.3851 of 2009. 3. Having lost the first round of battle, the petitioner cannot have the second round by pointing out that the 4th respondent's appointment was illegal. That will be a matter that will be independently dealt with and the petitioner cannot have a relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 11.05.2010 sanjeev