IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. LPA No. 758 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 29.9.2011. Sushila Devi & another --Appellants Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents 2. LPA No. 839 of 2009 (O&M) Rajesh Kumar --Appellant Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents 3. LPA No. 953 of 2009 (O&M) Richpal --Appellant Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present:- Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate. Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate. Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) C.M. Applications Separate applications have been filed in these appeals for placing on record order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.8.2011 passed in S.L.Ps (Civil) No. 28037-28044 of 2009 with a further prayer to dispose of the appeal in terms of the judgement dated 1.9.2009 passed in L.P.A No.96 of 2009. Earlier these appeals were adjourned sine die to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.Ps, referred to above. LPA No. 758 of 2009(O&M) -2- Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order on 24.8.2011:- “Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted. Ad interim order dated 7th December, 2009 is vacated. We clarify that the pendency of these appeals shall not come in the way of the respondents in taking recourse to appropriate proceedings in case the impugned judgement is not implemented by the State. ...2/- :2: The appeals will be heard on the SLP Paper Books. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties. (VINOD LAKHINA) (KUSUM GULATI) Court Master Court Master.” From the above order, it appears that the earlier interim order dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been vacated and the writ petitioners have been left free to initiate appropriate proceeding in case the judgement passed by the High Court is not implemented by the State. Based upon the aforesaid order the appellants in these L.P.As have prayed for hearing the appeals on merit. Applications are allowed. Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.8.2011 is taken on record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, main appeals are taken up on the board for final disposal. Main Appeals Since the issue in all these appeals is common and is otherwise covered by a judgement of this Court in L.P.A No.96 of 2009 and other LPA No. 758 of 2009(O&M) -3- connected matters, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. All these appeals arise out of a common judgement of learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 3.2.2009, whereby bunch of writ petitions are dismissed. Vide the order of the learned Single Judge as many as 11 writ petitions were disposed of. Earlier appeals were preferred in 8 of the 11 writ petitions decided by the learned Single Judge. These appeals have been disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 1.9.2009. These 8 appeals were allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by a common order dated 1.9.2009. Judgement of the learned Single Judge has been set aside. The short controversy in all these appeals is whether the selection made by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission against the 80 posts of Sub Inspectors in Haryana Police was valid and whether the subsequent order of the Govt. of Haryana dispensing with the services of appointed Sub Inspectors was in accordance with law. On examination of the entire issue, Hon'ble Division Bench while allowing the appeals held as under:- “we hold that no doubt it was a matter of administrative policy to create or abolish posts, the said judgments are not applicable to the present case. Even if HSISF was disbanded, the appointment and selection of the appellants was not for the said posts. We are not concerned with the validity of decision of the authority regarding the said posts but to the termination of the appellants who were never appointed to the said posts but to the police force. As regards judgments dealing with the question of there being no right to posts which were not advertised, the posts in question were duly advertised and appointment of the appellants was against the advertised posts. The judgments are, thus, distinguishable. LPA No. 758 of 2009(O&M) -4- 17. The question has, thus, to be answered in favour of the appellants and against the State. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly stated that in case of reinstatement, the appellants will not insist on financial benefits but only continuity of service. 18. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the State is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Appellants in these appeals were co-petitioners before the learned Single Judge, whose writ petitions were also dismissed. They being similarly situated and the judgement of learned Single Judge having been set aside by this Court, these appeals are allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench. Appellants shall be entitled to the similar relief as granted in the L.P.A. No.96 of 2009 decided on 1.9.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 29.9.2011. lucky