Civil Writ Petition No. 12102 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos. 10826 & 11029 of 2010 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 12102 of 2006 Dharmander Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. C.M. No. 10826 of 2010 Prayer allowed. Replication taken on record. Application disposed of. C.M. No. 11029 of 2010 Prayer is to place on record Annexure P-13. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No. 12102 of 2006 Being aggrieved against the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Multipurpose Health Workers (M.P.H.W.), the petitioners had filed this writ petition to impugn the said order. The facts noticed in brief are that the petitioners had applied for being appointed as Civil Writ Petition No. 12102 of 2006 2 MPHW in response to advertisement No. 4 of 2006 dated 06.05.2006. The petitioners received a letter informing that their applications stood rejected that they did not possess the required qualification on the cut off date. The petitioner, thereafter, visited the office of respondent No. 2 and inquired about the reasons of rejection of their applications. At that time, they learnt that their applications have been rejected as they did not possess diploma in MPHW. The submissions of the petitioners that they are possessing diploma in Sanitary Inspectors, which is higher qualification, was not considered forcing them to file the present writ petition to impugn the said order. By way of interim measure, the petitioners were directed to be considered and interviewed also. However, when the case came up for hearing on 20.09.2006, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners are not able to qualify on the basis of the cut off percentage secured by such selected/waiting list candidates. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioners impugned the said order by filing the Special Leave Petition and the case was remanded for fresh decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of the following observations made in this regard:- “ Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the impugned order, we are of the view that the impugned order was passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh without applying its mind and Civil Writ Petition No. 12102 of 2006 3 without passing a reasoned order. That being the position, we set aside the impugned order and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. It is expected that the High Court, while deciding this matter after remand, shall give proper reasons and after giving hearing to the parties, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The High Court is requested to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it.” The case has now come up for hearing in this background. As per the counsel, the case is remanded back for fresh decision to see whether the petitioners could be held ineligible for all times to come. There is no such indication available from the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only reason, as recorded in the order, is that the impugned order passed by the High Court did not disclose any reason in support of the same. Once the petitioners have been considered for appointment to the post and their case has been rejected on the ground that they have not been able to make mark on merits, nothing else would survive to be decided. The petitioners had prayed for the following two effective prayers:- (a) to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the letters dated 16.07.2006 (Annexures P/2 and P/4) passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby the applications/ candidature of the petitioners for the post of M.P.H.W. has been rejected in a totally arbitrary, illegal, unjust, Civil Writ Petition No. 12102 of 2006 4 unfair and unconstitutional manner and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (b) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners for the post of M.P.H.W. and issue interview letters which are scheduled to be conducted from 10.08.2006 to 14.08.2006 by the respondent No. 2 or in the alternative the declaration of final result may kindly be stayed. The first prayer was that the applications of the petitioners were rejected on an arbitrary, illegal and unjust ground. Since the petitioners have been considered for appointment, that part of the prayer would be rendered infructuous. The second prayer was again made for direction to consider the applications for the post of M.P.H.W. Since the petitioners have been considered and interviewed that prayer has also been allowed. The apprehension expressed by the petitioners that they would be held ineligible for all times to come and would not be in a position to apply for appointment in future would depend upon the action taken by the respondents in future. If any action is to be taken to hold the petitioners ineligible on the ground that they are not possessing the requisite qualification despite the fact that they are having diploma in Sanitary Inspector, it would be open for the petitioners to impugn the same. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. August 23 , 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE