CWP No.5324 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 09.03.2010 Om Parkash and others Vs. State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.AKS Goyat, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.RKS Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioners are Matriculate. They were offered six months training of Canal Patwaris in accordance with Rules 10 and 11 of the Punjab PWS (Irrigation Branch) Patwaris State Service Class- III Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). All the petitioners completed the Patwaris training. They appeared in the written examination of Patwar Examination and successfully qualified the same. The petitioners were registered with the employment exchanges in the State of Haryana. The petitioners were selected by a Committee Constituted for the purposes of Selection/appointment. The petitioners were duly selected and given appointment as Canal Patwaris in different places in the State of Haryana. The unsuccessful candidates, however, challenged the selection of the petitioners in CWP No.5324 of 2009 2 various writ petitions and the matter landed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment in the case of Raj Kumar and others etc. Vs. Shakti Raj and others etc.,1997 (2) RSJ, 459, set aside the selection of the selectees. In the meantime, the State Government issued circular dated 20.12.2002 for providing training to Class-III employees who are Matriculate to fill up the vacancies of Canal Patwaris lying vacant in the department. The petitioners served a legal notice dated 7.2.2003 challenging the aforesaid circular. Receiving no response, the petitioners filed CWP No.4921 of 2003 which was disposed of with a direction to decide the legal notice served by the petitioners by passing a speaking order. In pursuance of the direction of this Court,the respondents have passed the order dated 24.07.2003 whereby it has been decided that the vacancies of Canal Patwaris will be filled up by the Staff Selection Commission, Haryana, and the petitioners were advised to apply for the post of Canal Patwaris as and when the posts are advertised. The respondents have now issued advertisement dated 6.5.2007 for selection of Patwaris incorporating the same conditions as were incorporated in the earlier advertisement. The petitioners have challenged fresh advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under the rules framed by the State Government, namely, the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Patwaris State Service Class-III CWP No.5324 of 2009 3 Rules, 1955,the petitioners who are already brought on the circular register and declared as the accepted candidates, are entitled to be appointed against the available vacancies. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been set at rest by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 7911 of 2007 decided on 11.01.2008. The advertisement was under challenge in the above said writ petition which came to be dismissed vide the aforesaid judgment wherein the following observations have been made:- “It is not in dispute that all the petitioners before us have already crossed the age of 25 years as they were already matriculates before they appeared in the Patwar Examinations held in the year 1992 and 1993. About 15 years have elapsed since then. In the present petition, petitioners have attached a detailed list in their respect as Annexure P-39 in which they have specified their educational qualifications, besides their respective dates of birth. The petitioners were born in 1060s and 1970, except Bir Singh Petitioner who was born in the year 1959. Even amongst the petitioners who were CWP No.5324 of 2009 4 born in 1970s, the youngest of them i.e. Balwan Singh-petitioner was born on 10.6.1975. As such, all of them are in their 30s and 40s. They will not be eligible to be considered eligible for being appointed as Canal Patwaris on the basis of Rule 12 (a) of the 1955 Rules, unless they now complete with other fresh candidates in pursuance of the impugned advertisement Annexure P.45. In view of the above, there is no merit in all these petitions, which are, accordingly dismissed.” The writ petitioners in the above-said writ petitions, however, filed a review petition/modification application which came to be disposed of vide order dated 18.8.2008 with the following observations:- “ We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though, Rule 12 (a) of the 1955 Rules clearly prescribed that the name of those candidates, who had passed the Patwar examination would be struck off the list in case they had reached the age of 25 years and, that too, without having CWP No.5324 of 2009 5 been employed temporarily as a Patwari, yet in view of the fact that the respondents have already yielded to the request of various aspirants to public posts by raising the age limit to 40 years and even in the advertisement in question, the age limit was mentioned as 18 to 40 years, we dispose of the application by holding that the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates,who had already crossed the age of 25 years but not turned 40 years of age on the prescribed date under the notification dated 6.5.2007 shall be eligible for being appointed as Canal Patwaris, in case they fulfill the remaining requirements under the advertisement. To that an extent, order dated January 11, 2008 is modified.” The case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid directions. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. However, on account of the order passed on 18.08.2008 in the review petition/modification application, the CWP No.5324 of 2009 6 petitioners shall be entitled to relaxation of age as directed by this Court. Petition is disposed of. 9.3.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO