CWP NO.1950 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 06.2.2009 Subhash Rani and others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Harish Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The applications were invited for the posts of Anganwadi Supervisors in the year 1995-96. The petitioners also applied for the same. A written test was conducted on 25.8.1996. The result of the selection was declared and two select lists were prepared- one for the graduate and the other for the under-graduate candidates. The petitioners falling under the under- graduate category appeared for interview on different dates. The select list of total 401 candidates from both categories was issued. This selection was challenged in various writ petitions. One of such writ petition was CWP No.1926 of 1997. All these writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 2.4.1998 with a direction to the State Government to look into the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the candidates. The State CWP NO.1950 OF 2009 2 Government constituted a Committee comprising of Sh.R.S.Kalsia. The Committee submitted its report and this Court accepted the said report vide order dated 23.12.1998 passed in CWP No.2415 of 1997. A Review Application No.689/1999 was filed in CWP No.1926 of 1997 and other connected petitions. This Court set aside the previous orders and listed the case for re-hearing. A Division Bench of this Court passed order dated 19.5.2005 (Annexure P-2) in CWP No.1926 of 1997 directing the State Government either to look into the matter itself or to constitute some Committee. The State Government appointed Satish Chandra Committee and the said Committee in its report held that the private respondents herein were not eligible. A number of writ petitions were filed by the private respondents herein before this Court challenging the report of the Satish Chandra Committee. These writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2008, on the basis of statements of the Advocate General of the State of Punjab. The Advocate General stated that the State Government has decided not to dispense with the services of fifty petitioners (private respondents herein), as a one time measure as they have been working for the last many years and thus, the said petitioners (private respondents herein) will be adjusted against posts meant for direct recruits. It was further recorded that the State Government will issue appointment letters to the candidates who were found eligible for appointment by the Satish Chandra Committee. Accepting the statements, this Court disposed of the writ petitions. The grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government has increased the number of selected candidates from 401 to 451 and in this manner, 50 posts meant for direct recruits have been consumed. It will not CWP NO.1950 OF 2009 3 be available to the petitioners for their consideration in future. The petitioners had accordingly challenged the appointment of the private respondents in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that these appointments are in violation of the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is admitted position that the petitioners were not found eligible by Satish Chandra Committee. Although the private respondents were also found ineligible, but in view of the statement of the learned Advocate General of State Punjab recorded before the Court, their services were protected, as a one time measure, and on that basis, they were allowed to remain in service. Order dated 16.12.2008 is not under challenge. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi (supra) has no application to the appointments of the private respondents, particularly, when their appointments were protected by this Court as a one time measure. Petitioners have no locus to challenge the same. I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 06.2.2009 MFK NOTE:Whether to be referred to Reporter or not:NO