IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5273 of 2011 Date of decision : 23.3.2011 Smt.Poonam Devi & others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Bijender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 1.7.2005, 27.9.2005 and 10.10.2005. The case of the petitioners is that they were duly selected pursuant to an advertisement which was published on 6.2.2004 for recruitment of 1400 Constables in Haryana State Industrial Security Force. 1339 candidates were selected for appointment from amongst those who had applied in response to the advertisement dated 1.3.2004 and 1891 in response to the the advertisements dated 23.7.2004 and 24.7.2004. On 17.12.2004, the Election Commission of India announced the schedule of general elections of State Assemblies in Haryana and few other States. The consequent C.W.P.No.5273 of 2011 -2- elections resulted in the change of political set up in the State of Haryana. The necessity of bringing out the aforesaid facts here is because this forms an essential basis of the grievance of the petitioners that with the change of political fortunes in the State the selections and appointments are being tampered with by the successive regimes. The new dispensation scrapped the entire selection which resulted in filing of CWP No.248 of 2006. The respondent - State of Haryana, offering a justification for scrapping the list pleaded therein that the Haryana State Industrial Security Force was yet to be constituted under Section 3(1) of the 2003 Act which was called as the Haryana State Industrial Security Force Act, 2003. The Hon'ble Division Bench concluded that there was no infirmity in the action of the respondent-State and thus dismissed the writ petition which resulted in filing of a Special Leave Petition which was also dismissed. The State of Haryana also set a Commission of Inquiry by the name of Justice K.S.Bhalla Commission, which was constituted on 28.7.2005 to conclude that the entire exercise of selection of the candidates was not bona fide. The instant petition has now been filed with a plea that the facts were not properly presented before the Division Bench which resulted in erroneous findings being recorded. Another factor which has prompted the filing of this petition is that one Shri M.S.Malik, who was suspended by the then government, for his complicity in the said selections, was not only exonerated by Justice K.S.Bhalla Commission but was also reinstated under the orders of the Central C.W.P.No.5273 of 2011 -3- Administrative Tribunal, and this implied that there was nothing wrong with the selections made which were thus erroneously quashed by the Division Bench of this Court who did not obviously have the benefit of having these two important facts which have emerged now. In short, once again the challenge to the said action of the respondent-State in scrapping the selection is sought to be revived. On due consideration of the matter, I find that the instant petition is an absolute abuse of the process of law and is totally misconceived. The action of the respondent State of scrapping the selection having found favour with the Division Bench of this Court and which judgment was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is now sought to be reversed by the instant petition. The petition clearly is frivolous. How can this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, undo the impact of the judgment of the Division Bench, since affirmed by the Apex Court. The reason given by the petitioners for filing this writ petition is absurd. That merely because an official has been exonerated and the Central Administrative Tribunal has revoked his suspension, this should be sufficient to form a persuasive inference that the selection was justified. The Court is extremely incensed at the fact that such an advice should come from a professional lawyer who has advised the petitioners to file the instant petition. The verification to the petition clearly reveals that legal submissions have been made in para 21 on the advice of the counsel which are believed to be correct. C.W.P.No.5273 of 2011 -4- The Court can only express its anguish at the existing state of affairs where clearly after the affirmation of the action of the respondents by the Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in 2006, the instant petition is being filed with the same challenge by the very same petitioners on the advice of a counsel. The filing of the petition and the entire exercise of hearing has resulted in the loss of valuable time of the court unnecessarily which wasteful extravaganza the Court can ill afford. The petition is, thus, dismissed with costs of Rs.1 lakh. Rs.50,000/- shall be paid by the counsel namely, Mr.Bijender Singh, Enrollment No.D-207-IA/97, 120, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court, New Delhi-I, who has filed the petition by giving such advice and who persisted with his arguments despite the courts patient nudge to make him see reason. Costs be deposited before the State Legal Services Authority, Haryana. 23.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss