IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15497 of 1997 Date of decision:22.07.2009 Ram Bhagat ...Petitioner versus District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. --- 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petitioner, who was a Class-IV employee in judicial service, has challenged the selection and appointment of respondents 2 to 26 to the posts of Clerks/Additional Ahalmad. The selection was made pursuant to an advertisement which had been issued on 17.12.1996. The advertisement inviting applications for 25 posts of Clerks in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Faridabad was purported to be according to Haryana Government instructions. The challenge to the recruitment was that as per the instructions relating to recruitment of Class-IV employees on regular basis, the Government of Haryana had issued instructions making provision for consideration for promotion to posts of Clerks from Class-IV employees if (i) he should be matric pass; (ii) he should have completed two years of service on Class IV post w.e.f. 13.06.1974. The policy also sets out other details relating to how the service could be regularized after he was inducted on ad hoc Civil Writ Petition No.15497 of 1997 - 2 - basis. The objection by the petitioner was that he had completed two years of service on Class-IV post and he was also a matriculate. He ought to have promoted to the post and the selection without giving any room for accommodating the persons who are eligible for promotion was bad in law. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the plea of the petitioner by the fact that the writ petition does not itself challenge the advertisement notification. He had also participated in the selection process by applying under BC category and only after he found that he was not selected, he has challenged the selection. According to him, having participated in the selection and having not challenged the advertisement notification itself, he has estopped from questioning the appointments made pursuant to the advertisement. 3. It is too well established as a proposition of law that a person who does not challenge the advertisement itself and also participates in the selection process done pursuant to the advertisement, cannot challenge the selection subsequently on the ground that the selection was bad. As a matter of fact, the contention is that he has not been considered for promotion to the post. He may have perhaps independent remedies but the selection itself cannot be said to be bad for it is nobody's case that the selection was made to more posts than what were advertised or the selected candidates had been recruited even without appropriate sanction for the post. 4. The issue is not merely whether the State policy that prescribes for filling up the posts of Clerks on promotion basis also was Civil Writ Petition No.15497 of 1997 - 3 - not adhered to. It was unnecessary to incorporate such statement of policy in the advertisement itself but in the ultimate analysis if the post of Clerks had been filled up without adequately providing for promotee quota, such an objection could come only through a challenge to the recruitment to the number of posts made through the advertisement. If according to the petitioner, there was a defect in the advertisement in advertising for 25 posts which was in excess of quota, even then the ground must have been so made that the selection was in excess of the cadre strength available from open market. Without there being a specific challenge to advertisement itself, the prayer seeking for setting aside the selection, merits no consideration. 5. The petitioner has stated on affidavit subsequently to filing of the writ petition that as many as 57 posts had been filled up in the cadre of Clerks/Additional Ahalmad and all the persons had been only direct recruitees and no employee had been promoted. The petitioner may have independent remedy if he so advised to make an appropriate representation to competent authorities for consideration for promotion in the manner provided under the Haryana Government instructions referred to above. For the present, the petitioner cannot have any remedy in the manner as sought for. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.07.2009 sanjeev