LPA No. 913 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 913 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 16, 2011 Ishwar and others …Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 & 6. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against short order dated 15.03.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that if the writ petitioner-appellants were aggrieved against the direct appointment of some persons without following any criteria then their remedy was to seek a reference or to file a Civil Suit. Accordingly, the learned Single LPA No. 913 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Judge has refused to adjudicate the issue. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2011, reads as under: “The petitioners, if aggrieved against the direct appointment of some persons without following any criteria, may have their remedy of seeking reference or by filing a civil suit. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed.” 2. In response to notice of motion having been issued. Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 5 and 6. Learned State counsel has also put in appearance 3. Mr. S. K. Verma and Mr. Neeraj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that a letter was circulated amongst all Heads of the Department inviting applications for the post of Security Guard with detail specifications. According to them, an advertisement was issued and the appellants have applied against the same. All these issues could have easily been gone into by the learned Single Judge and adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, without issuing notice of motion calling upon the respondents to file written statement, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition by relegating the appellants to the remedy of civil suit or a reference. LPA No. 913 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that in this matter notice of motion ought to have been issued by the learned Single Judge and after seeking reply of the respondents, adjudication under Article 226 could have been undertaken. It is not a case where disputed questions of fact would arise and there was difficulty in finding out whether the appellants answered the prescription given in the letters circulated to all Heads of the Department or advertisement or specification in their advertisement. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge with liberty to the respondents to file their written statement within four weeks from today with a copy in advance to counsel opposite. The parties shall appear before the learned Single Judge on 19.09.2011. 5. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 16, 2011 Atul