LPA No. 1033 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1033 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision 03.06.2011 Jeet Singh and others -----Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik Ravi, Advocate for the appellants 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 05.05.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellants could not ask for revival of the waiting list because the selection had taken place in the year 2007. The wait list could remain alive only for a period of one year. 2. Mr. Ravinder Malik Ravi, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in fact he has earlier approached this Court on two occasions by filing CWP No. 7311 of 2009, which was dismissed as withdrawn as the material particulars were lacking. According to the learned counsel, liberty was granted to file fresh writ petition, which LPA No. 1033 of 2011 (O&M) -2- was thereafter filed being CWP No. 16282 of 2009. In the aforesaid petition, the following order was passed on 26.10.2009 (P-6), which reads thus: “The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 14.07.2009 on the ground that the proper basis has not been laid in as much as that there was no indication if person in the waiting list and lower in merit belonging to the category of the petitioners had been appointed or not. The petitioners have again filed this writ petition without providing such information on the ground that they had made an application under the Right to Information Act, but the respondents have refused information. The petitioners would have remedy in case information so sought is declined. The writ petition cannot be entertained unless the proper basis laid in the petition. Dismissed.” 3. A perusal of the order would show that the effort of the appellants in approaching the Court on earlier two occasions were useless because no information was provided to show that persons lower in merit belonging to the category of the appellants had been appointed. If the posts are lying vacant and within one year of the LPA No. 1033 of 2011 (O&M) -3- selection, which was admittedly made on 22.06.2008, no direction was sought. Therefore, no interference in the view taken by the learned Single Judge would be called for. The appeal is wholly without merit. 4. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE June 03, 2011 Atul