L.P.A. No. 662 of 2009 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 662 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 6.8.2009 Kali Ram ..........Appellant Versus State of Haryana & Others ..........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. On 27.7.2009, following order was passed:- “This appeal has been preferred against judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition as premature. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that challenge in the writ petition was to advertisement dated 8.7.2009, without finalizing the result of process already undertaken for filling up posts in pursuance of advertisement dated 27.11.2007. It is submitted that the question, whether second notification could be issued without finalizing the earlier process which was at issue, was required to be decided. Notice of motion. L.P.A. No. 662 of 2009 (O&M) (2) Mr. B.S. Rana, Addl. A.G., Haryana present in Court, accepts notice and seeks time to take instructions. List again on 6.8.2009. In the meanwhile, any further proceedings will be subject to further order.” 2. Learned counsel for the State states that the process for selection of Group 'D' post had been initiated in pursuance of advertisement dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure P-1) and the appellant had been interviewed on 27.11.2007. The selection could not be finalized as in the meanwhile some of the members of the Interview Board superannuated from service. On that ground the process of recruitment was dropped. Proposal dated 5.6.2009 initiated by the Director Treasuries and Accounts, respondent No.3 was duly approved. A photocopy of the proposal prepared by respondent No.3 and approved by the Government has been placed on record. A copy has been given to counsel for the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that reasons in the proposal of respondent No.3 are not factually and legally correct and the appellant will like to challenge the decision taken thereof. 4. In view of the fact that the reasons for dropping the earlier process have become known to the appellant now, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the appellant taking appropriate remedy against the decision, afresh, in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 06, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No L.P.A. No. 662 of 2009 (O&M) (3)