C.W.P. No. 11705 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11705 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.6.2010 Sudama and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG Haryana for the respondent-State 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition is filed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to appoint the petitioners against the existing vacancies of clerks which are available before 19.11.95 in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 18.9.1998 in Civil Appeal No. 4900-4904 of 1998 – Roshani Devi and others vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1998(8) SCC 39. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Roshani Devi's case (supra) has issued the following directions:- “(1) The appointments already made from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 will not be anulled. (2) The last persons who is stated to have been appointed being at Serial No. 4645, persons occupying higher position than him could be considered for C.W.P. No. 11705 of 2005 (O&M) 2 appointment to the post of Clerk if there exists any vacancy for them. (3) The vacancy in this context would mean the vacancies which were available in the State of Haryana prior to the advertisement issued for selecting persons for the said post for the year 1995. It is to be made for selecting persons for the said post for the year 1995. It is to be made clear that if no vacancies exist on the aforesaid date, then no further appointment would be made from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 notwithstanding the directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari case. (4) If vacancies did exist on the date as aforementioned, then the appointments from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 could be made strictly on the basis of their merit position in the list. (5) We also do not approve of the inaction on the part of the State Government in not assailing the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari case and now coming up before us making submissions that judgment is practically incapable of being implemented.” Notices were issued in the the present matter. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement. It is specifically mentioned in the written statement that at present no vacancy is available in general, SC and BC categories to which the C.W.P. No. 11705 of 2005 (O&M) 3 petitioners belong and as such no recommendation/appointment can be made by the State Govt. On being asked by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to establish that in fact vacancies available on or before 19.11.1995, still exist. In view of the fact that no vacancy exist relief sought can not be granted to the petitioners, the petition is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 28.6.2010 JUDGE reena