Civil Writ Petition No.10101 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 16, 2011 Sandeep Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.I.D.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr.H.N.Mehtani, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking writ of certiorari for quashing advertisement (Annexure P-4) dated 8.2.2009, whereby respondents have advertised posts for the District Fisheries Officer, District Fisheries Officer-cum-Research Officer and Fisheries Farm Manager (Group `B') in Fisheries Department. His grievance is that the advertisement is contrary to the rule. Notice of motion was issued by noticing the contention raised by the counsel that this advertisement is contrary to the rules. Civil Writ Petition No.10101 of 2009 : 2 : Respondent-Commission as well as State filed reply taking a stand that the amended rules had not been notified. This Court then noticed that there was nothing on record to indicate that at any stage the rules were approved for amendment by any competent authority. The State counsel was given time to file a supplementary affidavit specifically indicating therein the competent authority under the Business Rules to amend rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and whether in the present case competent authority had taken a decision to amend the rules or not. The requisite affidavit was filed when the court noticed the discrepancies in the stand taken by the respondent-State. This Court passed a detailed order to the following effect on 19.8.2010:- “Initially the written statement was filed by Mr.P.V.Singh, Director Fisheries Haryana, Panchkula. In the reply filed by respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4, it is mentioned that after notification of the rules, which were reproduced in the reply, Government had decided to amend the appendix `B' of Group B Service Rules. The proposed amendment is also being listed in the reply. When the matter came up for hearing before this court, the Court noticed that the amendment of the Rules had not been notified. Finding that there was nothing on record to indicate that at any stage rules were approved for amendment by the competent authority, the Court required a specific affidavit to be filed indicating that who is competent authority as per the Rules of Business to amend the rules. An affidavit has now been filed to Civil Writ Petition No.10101 of 2009 : 3 : disclose that Council of Ministers is the competent authority to make amendment in the Service Rules. It is categorically averred now that no amendment has been approved by the competent authority. Thus, the stand taken in the earlier reply was not correct. In fact, it was misleading to an extent. This casual approach on the part of the respondents to file reply before this Court had earlier also been noticed and needs to be checked.” Notice was issued to the Director Fisheries Haryana, Panchkula to explain under what circumstances he filed an affidavit in reply to the writ petition before checking proper details. Consequently, he filed an additional necessary affidavit and on 19.1.2011, the Court had observed as under:- “On 19.8.2010 this Court had noticed that the written statement had been filed in a casual manner and there was variation in the affidavit filed subsequently during the course of proceedings and the contents of the written statement. The plea of the petitioner was sought to be negated on the ground that the notifications which were referred to as Annexure P-2 and P-3 were never implemented as they did not find favour with the Council of Ministers. Learned counsel for the petitioner then confronted with the affidavit of Sh.P.V.Singh dated 29.10.2010 and referred to advertisement which was issued by respondents in 1991 advertising these posts of District Fishery Officer by incorporating the eligibility conditions Civil Writ Petition No.10101 of 2009 : 4 : which have been referred to in Annexure P-2 and P-3. The stand of the respondents is thus ambiguous as on the one hand they are trying to shake off the effect of Annexure P-2 and P-3 whereas Annexure P-7 reflects to the contrary. Learned counsel for the State of Haryana prays for some more time to file another affidavit explaining the contents of Annexure P-7 and also as to whether any appointment has been made pursuant to this advertisement in the year 1991. Let needful be done within a period of three weeks from today. List on 19.3.2011.” Another affidavit has now been filed and placed on record by Shri P.V.Singh pointing out that in the year 1991, an advertisement was issued on the basis of amended rules when 9 candidates were recommended by Haryana Public Service Commission on 6.2.1992. This is stated to be an inadvertent mistake. The stand before the court is that the amendment in the rules was never approved by the Cabinet and had been amended in consultation with the Commission. The amendment was carried out by the Commission in consultation with the Secretary/Commissioner, which was not the competent authority to amend the rules. It is also pointed out that out of the 9 selected candidates, 8 were duly eligible and qualified as per the statutory Rules 1980, which should have been followed while making appointment in the year 1991. The Director has regretted his mistake and has further stated that the Civil Writ Petition No.10101 of 2009 : 5 : rules as reflected in Annexure P-7 were never approved by the Council of Ministers and under a bonafide belief, this amendment was reflected, but the fact remains that an amendment has not been approved by the Council of Ministers. Director has also stated that thereafter the statutory rules of 1980 have been followed while making appointment in the Fisheries Department. In this view of the factual position, no case for quashing the advertisement would be made out. However, the Director or the other persons responsible for filing reply before this court need to be cautioned to remain vigilant while filing reply before this court. This aspect may be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary for further dissemination to all concerned Secretaries, who are responsible for filing reply to the notices issued by this Court. The writ petition is, however, dismissed. August 16, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE