IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 19396 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 21, 2009 BALWANT RAJ ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RK Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to produce the record of Selection Committee constituted for selection of various Class-IV posts and further for quashing orders dated Civil Writ Petition No. 19396 of 2007 2 21.3.2003 and 19.9.2007, Annexures P-3 and P-9, respectively. The petitioner claims appointment to Class-IV post. The facts, in detail, are not required to be given, as the matter has earlier come to this Court, twice over. It transpires that certain Class-IV posts were to be filled up. Selection process was concluded and the petitioner came to be appointed. Certain unsuccessful persons filed CWP 394 of 1997 (wrong number of the writ petition has been given in para-3 of the petition). The petition was allowed vide order dated 28.1.1999 by a Division Bench of this Court. The selections made by the Selection Committee were quashed and directions were given to the official respondents to make fresh selections within six months. The following is the operative part of the order:- “The appointment of three physically handicapped persons namely Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar and Kamaljit Singh (Respondent Nos.37, 38 and 44) respectively are upheld. The remaining selections are quashed with a direction to the official respondents to make fresh selections within six months. Till the issuance of orders on the basis of fresh selections, the respondents whose selection have been quashed shall continue in service.” Fresh selection was held, after constitution of a Selection Committee. Against 13 posts, against which the petitioner claims appointment, 13 persons have been appointed and four persons have been kept in waiting list. The name of the petitioner does not find mention either in the list of selected candidates or in the waiting list. Civil Writ Petition No. 19396 of 2007 3 CM 6005 of 2000 came to to be filed in this court in CWP 394 of 1997, indicating compliance of the orders passed in the main writ petition. Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the Civil Miscellaneous application, on 1.3.2001, passed the following order:- “In compliance of the directions given by the court, respondent No.2 has made fresh selections and given appointments to the selected candidates. To this effect an affidavit of Dr. Kiranjit Kaumar Civil Surgeon Hoshiarpur has been filed today in the court. After perusing the averments made in the affidavit we are convinced that respondent No.2 has carried out the court's orders. Hence the application is disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the candidates who have not been selected in the fresh selection to avail appropriate legal remedy.” The petitioner and certain other persons, aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not selecting them, filed CWP 17936 of 2000. The matter was taken up by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.8.2002 and the following order was passed:- “The petitioners have challenged the selection and appointment of respondent Nos.3 to 17 on various Class IV posts. Counsel for the petitioners prays for permission to withdraw this Writ Petition so as to enable the petitioners to approach the authority for grant of appointment against the available vacancies. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has no objection. Mr. Sharma states that if a representation is submitted to the competent authority, it shall be Civil Writ Petition No. 19396 of 2007 4 considered sympathetically. Allowed as prayed for. Dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.” It seems that the petitioner made a representation, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 21.3.2003 (Annexure P-3). It seems that, thereafter, the petitioner made yet another representation, which has also been rejected vide the other impugned order dated 19.9.2007 (Annexure P-9). Learned counsel for the petitioner, essentially, states that the petitioner has not been awarded marks for personality, general aptitude and viva and, therefore, indulgence of this Court is sought to correct the illegal action of the respondents. The relevant record in regard to the earlier selection as also the subsequent selection, has been produced in court. The record indicates that the petitioner was considered at Serial No.40 in the earlier selection. In the criteria of personality, the petitioner was awarded 1 mark, for general aptitude zero marks and for viva, 1 mark. In the subsequent selection, which is now at issue, the respondents have adopted the marks for personality, general aptitude and viva voce, as were awarded in the earlier selection. Thus, for personality, general aptitude and viva, the petitioner has been given 2 marks, which have been calculated along with the marks awarded for qualification and experience. The mark sheets have also been shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No. 19396 of 2007 5 Having considered the record, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the averments made by the petitioner are not substantiated by record. De hors the merit, I am of the view that the selection had earlier been challenged and quashed. Subsequently, CM 6005 of 2000 was filed, whereupon this Court had recorded that this Court's orders passed in the main writ petition (CWP 394 of 1997) had been carried out. The petitioner and others, having not been selected, filed CWP 17936 of 2000. The order passed thereon, as extracted above, indicates that the counsel for the petitioners withdrew the writ petition. It seems that the petitioners in CWP 17936 of 2000 could not satisfy this Court with the grounds of challenge to the appointment of the private respondents in that writ petition and, therefore, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioners sought permission “to approach the authority for grant of appointment against the available vacancies”. Considering the prayer, this Court, vide order dated 23.8.2002 (Annexure P-2), as extracted above, noticed “Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has no objection. Mr. Sharma states that if a representation is submitted to the competent authority, it shall be considered sympathetically”. Thus, permission was sought to file a representation only to be appointed against available vacancies and not in regard to challenge to the merit of selection itself. In this view of the matter, the petitioner once having made a challenge to the selection and having withdrawn the writ petition, would not have a right to file second writ petition on same cause of action, again. Be that as it may, the original record having been referred to, Civil Writ Petition No. 19396 of 2007 6 I find that the petitioner has no ground to seek appointment, being low in merit. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. August 21, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?