IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3691 of 2011 Date of decision : 1.3.2011 Jagdish Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.K.Sud, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer that the respondents be directed to advertise and carry out the selection process qua 69 posts which are lying vacant. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the earlier bouts of litigation the respondents in the course of filing reply have submitted that only 10 posts are lying vacant, which is totally contrary to the information which is supplied under the Right to Information Act, according to which the respondents are having 69 posts vacant. He, thus, contends that the stand of the respondents is patently false and in such an eventuality the respondents should be directed to advertise the entire posts so as to enable him to apply for the same and participate in the process of selection. C.W.P.No.3691 of 2011 -2- After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the prayer made in this petition is totally misplaced. Even if the stand of the petitioner is accepted that there are 69 vacant posts available in stead of 10 posts , which they had stated before the Court in some proceedings, yet in such an eventuality also the petitioner cannot claim that the respondents be directed to advertise the entire posts which are available with them. It is always open to the employer to assess his needs and initiate the process of appointment by filling up the vacant posts. Under no circumstances the court can evaluate the need of the respondents. That being the situation the petition is totally misconceived. In case the petitioner has any grievance that the respondents have misled the Court in some other proceedings by filing a false affidavit, he has recourse to the remedy available to him under the law. But the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is certainly not the remedy. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 1.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss