IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.929 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 25.11.2009 Jagat Singh. -----Appellant Vs. The State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing writ petition of the appellant, whereby appointment of respondents No.4 to 6 was challenged and as a consequence, direction for appointment of the appellant was sought. 2. Case of the appellant is that six posts of Assistant Secretary, in the category of Ex-servicemen/wards of Ex- servicemen, in the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board were advertised in the year 1991, in which the appellant was also a candidate. The appellant was not selected while respondents No.4 to 6 were selected. The appellant filed CWP No.721 of LPA No.929 of 2009 1992 which was dismissed on 1.6.1993. The appellant alongwith some other persons filed Civil Appeal Nos.14910-14911 of 1996 Anup Singh and another v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and others before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which were dismissed vide order dated 22.11.1996, since out of five persons who had been appointed, services of four had already been terminated and one had resigned. Vacancies so accrued were ordered to be filled up by considering the eligible candidates. Thereafter, in the year 1998, respondents No.3 to 6 were again appointed. Writ petition giving rise to this appeal, was, thereafter, filed by the appellant, on the ground that on representation of the appellant, Vigilance Department conducted an inquiry and found the certificates furnished by the contesting respondents to be bogus. In reply filed by the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, it was stated that no case was made out for terminating services of respondents No.4 to 6. The matter was duly examined at the Government level and it was found that the issue of report of Vigilance Department had been duly considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation in a review application. Contesting private respondents also filed reply, stating that the issue raised in the report of the Vigilance Department had been duly considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as the said issue was part of replication filed before the Supreme Court and thus, the same issue could not be allowed to be raised again. 2 LPA No.929 of 2009 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It was observed that the issue of report of the Vigilance Department was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same could not be allowed to be reagitated by way of a separate writ petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the issue of vigilance report had been raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of review application, which was dismissed. This being the position, we are unable to find any fault with the finding that the matter could not be reopened. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that after the filing of the writ petition, two other persons, who had challenged the appointment, namely Anoop Singh and Om Prakash, were given appointment on 28.7.2000 and case of the appellant was identical. This aspect was put forward by way of a replication dated 22.8.2000. 7. Admittedly, on this cause of action, neither any writ petition was filed nor pending writ petition was amended nor the contesting respondents were sought to be confronted with the averment by any order of the Court, so as to call for their response on this aspect. We also do not find any such argument having been raised before the Single Bench on this aspect. We cannot allow this contention to be raised for the first time when the same was not raised before the Single Bench and for which the affected parties were never given opportunity to respond. 3 LPA No.929 of 2009 8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 25, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 4