CWP No. 10417 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10417 of 2000 Date of Decision: March 04, 2009 Dr. Jitendera Singh dhatarwal and another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ajay Gulati, AAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr.Amrit Paul, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** 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. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the advertisement dated 16.2.2000 under which the private respondents were selected and appointed as Senior Dental Surgeons. During arguments the main plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the reliance on the rules of the Haryana Civl Dental Service (Group-A) Rules, 1987 was illegal since the posts now being filled up existed prior to the promulgation CWP No. 10417 of 2000 2 of the said rules. It has been argued that at the relevant time the Haryana Civil Medical (Group-A) Service Rules, 1981 were applicable even to the dental surgeons. In my opinion this argument could not be brought in place to grant relief to the petitioners for the simple reason that both these rules provide for 25% of the posts to be filled up by direct recrutiment. It is not disputed that the posts being filled up fall within the direct quota. The second argument raised bylearned counsel for the petitione is that these posts have been wrongly filled up by General Category candidates. It is to be noticed that the petitioners are laying their claim not as reserved category aspirants for direct recruitment but as officers who are claiming promotion. In the circumstances the petitioners would not have locus standii to challenge the alleged illegal diversion of posts from reserved category to general category. No other point has been argued. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 04, 2009 sunita