CWP No. 1633 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 09 , 2009 1. CWP No. 1633 of 2009 EHC Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others 2. CWP No. 2987 of 2009 EHC Manphool Singh No. 405/RWR vs. State of Haryana and others 3. CWP No.21737 of 2008 Parveen Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana and others 4. CWP No. 2595 of 2009 EHC Narender Singh No. 162/RWR vs. State of Haryana and others 5. CWP No. 2453 of 2009 EHC Rajesh Kumar No. 398/RWR vs. State of Haryana and others Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner(s). 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 dispose of Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 1633 of 2009, 2987 of 2009, 21737 of 2008, 2595 of 2009 and 2453 of CWP No. 1633 of 2009 2 2009. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 1633 of 2009. The issue relates to entitlement of the petitioner(s) for being deputed for the B-I course under 35% quota above the respondent Np.5 for the year 2003-2004. It is not disputed that the facts are covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 7952 of 2004 decided on 5.11.2004. The only argument put forward is that the impugned selections were made prior to 5.11.2004 i.e. the judgment in the case of Naresh Kumar (supra). In the above mentioned case the Division Bench held as follows:- “Since Rule 13.7 of the 1934 Rules, extracted hereinabove, clearly envisages the applicability o the principle of seniority-cum-fitness for determining the entitlement of a constable to be placed on the list B-1 i.e. for being deputed to the Lower School Course, we have no doubt,whatsoever,that given the minimum requisite merit/fitness required, the senior has to be placed on list B-1 as a matter of preference. The only justification depicted in the written statement for considering the claim of respondent No.4 as superior to that of the petitioner is, that respondent No.4 was placed at a higher level vis-a-vis the petitioner while adjudicating the relevant merit of the candidate. As noticed by the Apex Court in Lt. General Rajender Singh Kadyan's case (supra),the comparison of candidates on the basis of merit is irrelevant under the aforesaid principle of promotion. In the aforesaid view of the matter,since it is not the case of the respondents, that the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum requisite merit for being CWP No. 1633 of 2009 3 placed on List B-1, we are satisfied, that the instant writ petition must succeed and the petitioner, on account of seniority, must be preferred over respondent No.4 for being placed on List B-1 and accordingly for being deputed to the Lower School Courses.” A perusal of the above extract makes it clear that the said judgment had only declared what the law was and, therefore, the fact that the present cases were considered prior to the said judgment would not distract from the applicability thereof. The next ground taken is that of delay. With regard to this contention in yet another similar case of Balraj Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 19965 of 2006 decided on 22.10.2008 another Division Bench held as follows:- “We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. As far as the objections of the respondents with regard to the delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court is concerned, the same deserves to be rejected as the respondents are required to implement the judgments on an issue which has been finally adjudicated upon by this Court and has attained finality. For implementing the judgment, the respondents should not wait qua the similarly placed employees to approach the Court and then get orders from this Court on similar grounds. This is against the public policy and adds to be burden of the courts as well.” However, it cannot be gainsaid that a mechanical application of CWP No. 1633 of 2009 4 the judgment in Naresh Kumar's case (supra) at this stage would not only unsettle the respondent No.5 but would also have the effect of prejudicing the seniority of other candidates of the intervening courses. In the circumstances it is directed that the petitioner(s) would be sent for the next Course and would get the benefits prospectively. The writ petitions stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 09 , 2009 sunita