CWP No. 19449 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 15, 2009 1. CWP No. 19449 of 2006 Hem Chand vs. The State Transport Commissioner and another 2. CWP No. 6980 of 2007 Satbir Singh vs. The State Transport Commissioner and another 3. CWP No. 6981 of 2007 Parkash vs. The State Transport Commissioner and another Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This order shall disposed of Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 19449 of 2006, 6980 of 2007 and 6981 of 2007 as common questions of law and facts are involved. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in not appointing them to the post of drivers despite the fact that they were selected and placed at serial Nos. 39, 53 and 52 of the selection list. Advertisement dated 4.4.2003 was issued whereby 45 posts of drivers were advertised in the Haryana Roadways. The first condition mentioned in the advertisement was as follows:- “These vacancies are subject to vacant post in various depot CWP No. 19449 of 2006 2 occurred in future, which can vary at the time of recruitment.” It is the case of the respondents that in fact earlier there was a proposal to deploy double pair of drivers which could not fructify and, therefore, for this reason the number of vacancies were reduced and therefore petitioners were not selected. The petitioners had earlier filed writ petition bearing CWP No.9102 of 2005 wherein their case was only that persons lower than them in the merit list had been appointed. The said writ petition was dismissed with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice sent by the petitioners. In response thereto order Annexure P-4 was passed wherein it was clarified that no person junior to the petitioners has been appointed. The petitioners have not raised any ground against this finding in Annexure P-4. Apart from that there is no averment that the defence that the number of posts was reduced is either not correct or that in fact either on the advertisement or even on the date of selection there were vacancies against which the petitioners could have been appointed. In the replication the plea has been taken that on 11.7.2007 a fresh advertisement has been made. I do not see how this fresh advertisement (made four years after the original advertisement and two years after the selection) could give any right to the petitioners to be appointed. Thus, in these circumstances these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 15, 2009 sunita