C.W.P. No.21703 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.21703 of 2010(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 5.1.2011 Yogesh Kumar and others PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioners pray for quashing the impugned advertisement No.5 of 2007 dated 6.5.2007 by which 259 posts of Patwaris were advertised and have also prayed that the selection process initiated on the basis thereof should be set aside since they include 71 posts of Patwaris for other Departments against which the petitiones were selected on 22.5.1999. The case of the petitiones is, in fact, a labyrinth of facts. They claim C.W.P. No.21703 of 2010 -2- that they participated in the selection process in the year 1997 and were selected. In this process, 1055 posts of Patwaris in the Revenue Department were advertised which included 71 posts for the Department of Panchayats. Even though the petitioners were selected, they were not offered appointment and they filed C.W.P. No.16605 of 1999 and also various other writ petitions with a prayer that a direction be issued to the respondents to issue appointment letters to them. During the pendency of the said writ petition, respondent No.1 issued letter dated 16.3.2000 abolishing the posts which had been lying vacant for more than two years on 29.2.2000. The respondents filed written statement to these bunch of petitions explaining that due to stringency, these posts were abolished. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 23.5.2000 and directions were issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioners, against which order the respondents preferred S.L.P. No.13357 of 2000. The order of this Court was set aside and the matter was remitted back for a decision afresh. While doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court maintained status quo with regard to the filling up of posts during the period when the matter was to remain pending before this Court on account of the setting aside of the earlier order dated 23.5.2000. While the writ petition was pending for re-consideration, the respondents advertised 71 posts of Patwaris vide advertisement dated 31.7.2004 for Panchayat Department. The petitioners then filed C.M.Application No.13996 of 2004 in the pending writ petition to contend that 71 posts which have been advertised by the respondents, were part of 1055 posts which had been advertised earlier and regarding which selection, the writ petition was pending and hence, these posts could not have been re-advertised. In response to this application, the respondents submitted that 1055 posts which were advertised earlier, pertained to the Revenue Department only and not for any other Department and that 71 posts C.W.P. No.21703 of 2010 -3- advertised subsequently were in response to the requisition received from the Panchayat Department. Considering the matter in the light of the averments made in the application and the reply thereto, this Court vide order dated 16.8.2004 directed the counsel for the State to produce the records showing the original requisition on the basis of which the advertisement of 1997 qua 1055 posts was issued. Upon a perusal of the records, the Court observed that 1055 posts of Patwaris were in respect of all the Departments and this reply of the respondents was treated as an attempt to over-reach the Court and the Secretary of the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board was asked to explain his conduct for making an incorrect averment who while appearing before this Court, submitted that the advertisement qua 71 posts issued on 31.7.2004 had been cancelled and he apologised for his conduct. The writ petition preferred by the petitioners which was being re-considered by this Court, was decided on 2.8.2005 in along with several other writ petitions and the said writ petition was dismissed, leading to the challenge by the petitioners to the order dated 2.8.2005, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereupon on 28.9.2007 the matter once again was remitted back to the High Court for re-consideration. The writ petitions were once again dismissed on 11.2.2009 and another challenge was made by way of S.L.P. No.15230 of 2009. The Hon'ble supreme Court vide its order dated 23.7.2009, dismissed the S.L.P. and the Review Application preferred against the said judgment was also dismissed. During this interregnum when the proceedings are pending, the respondents on 6.5.2007 issued an advertisement Annexure P-13 initiating the process of selecting 71 Patwaris. It is this selection which the petitioners now question by pleading that they did not come to know about this advertisement and acquired knowledge C.W.P. No.21703 of 2010 -4- only on 11.11.2009, when a public notice was advertised in various newspapers for all the petitioners who had preferred these writ petitions, i.e. C.W.P. No.11526 of 1994 titled Rajpal Singh and others v. State of Haryana, C.W.P. No.15247 of 1999 titled Amar Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, C.W.P. No.16605 of 1999 titled Jai Bhagwan Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others and C.W.P. No.3860 of 2003 titled Anil Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others. In this notice, it was given out that the petitioners and similarly situated persons were entitled to relaxation in the upper age limit. Upon further enquiry by the petitioners, they came to know that respondent No.3 had advertised 259 posts of Revenue Patwaris which included 188 posts for the Revenue Department and 71 posts for the other Departments and as per the understanding of the petitioners, these 71 posts were meant only for the Panchayat Department and were the very same posts against which the petitioners were selected in the year 1997. They thus represented to the respondents stating that 71 posts of Patwaris advertised for other Departments on 6.5.2007 being the very same posts against which the petitioners were selected, they had a right to be selected against these posts and that the selection, if any, of any other persons qua 71 posts was illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. The petitioners further claim that their representation has since not been decided and rather, respondent No.3 advertised another public notice dated 19.3.2010, wherein it was stated that keeping in view the large number of applications and as per the condition of the advertisement , the Commission has decided to shortlist the candidates for interview in the respective categories on the basis of the academic qualifications. Another notice was inserted in the newspapers on 19.6.2010 for holding interviews for the posts of Revenue Patwaris. The petitioners, in the meantime, continued to represent to the respondents by pleading that they had the preferential right to be selected against the 71 posts. C.W.P. No.21703 of 2010 -5- Having not succeeded in their efforts in persuading the respondents to accede to their request, , the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer, the contours of which have already been delineated in the opening paras of this judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, with a strong reference to the facts, contended that the petitioners having been selected in the year 1997 against 71 posts pertaining to the Panchayat Department, had a preferential right to be selected and that conduct of the respondents is only to defeat the rights of the petitioners. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the petition and am unable to accept the contention which has been raised before this Court. As per the case of the petitioners, it is true that they were selected in the year 1997, but before the appointment could be made, the Government by pleading the financial stringency, abolished the posts and this Court vide order dated 23.5.2000 allowed the writ petitions and observed as follows :- 'Before parting with the judgment, we may observe here the State Government in a selection process of 1055 candidates for which the process started way back on September, 1997 and the reasonable expectation of the selected candidates to get appointments, their becoming overage for government jobs etc. We have also pondered over the matter as to for what period the list under Rule 11 to be prepared as per this order should be kept alive as there can be reasonable expectations of the persons to apply for the posts which may become available hereinafter. We are of the view that this order will, endure for a period of three years as the C.W.P. No.21703 of 2010 -6- training/examination takes about a year. Let these directions be carried out within two months.” This order when challenged by the respondents by way of S.L.P., the matter was remitted back for re-consideration and when the writ petition was dismissed, the petitioners challenged the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter was once again remitted back to the High Court for re- consideration. Finally, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 11.2.2009 and the order of this Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.7.2009. It is, thus, evident that the claim of the petitioners stood extinguished in the year 2009 qua these posts when the S.L.P. was dismissed. The respondent/State thereafter initiated a fresh process of selection in which the petitioners were free to participate as the respondents had by virtue of the notice Annexure P-14 in various newspapers, granted the concession of relaxation in upper age limit for the said advertisement qua the petitioners and it was even submitted that the persons who could not apply in response to the advertisement dated 6.5.2007, were free to apply fresh by 30.11.2009. It was made clear that the relaxation in upper age limit was only for the persons who had preferred the writ petitions before this Court and was not available to any other person. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts, the petitioners are not entitled to any preferential right of selection, merely because they had succeeded in 1997, which selection did not crystalize into an appointment, leading to a spate of litigation which ultimately did not result into any fruitful benefit to the petitioners. I am, thus, of the opinion that the selection which has been initiated by the respondents, deserves to be carried out in fairness, which every selection process is expected to adhere to, and the petitioners cannot be given any other benefit, except the one which has rightly been granted by the State Government to enable the petitioners to overcome their handicap of age. C.W.P. No.21703 of 2010 -7- No ground to interfere. Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) January 5, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO