CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2871 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 Keshav Sharma and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....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. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Appearing in response to an advertisement, the petitioners were appointed as Family Welfare Extension Educator on contract basis on 7.8.2001. Appointment was on a fix salary of Rs.7,600/- per month and the selection was made by Haryana Staff Selection Commission. While the contractual appointment was nearing an end, the petitioners approached this Court with a prayer that they should be permitted to continue as regular appointees. This prayer was declined, against which the petitioners approached the Supreme Court. While disposing of the Special Leave Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not allow the prayer made in the petition CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2871 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 2 }: but observed that some preference could be given to such persons who had gained experience on the post. The Supreme Court was also pleased to direct that the advertisement for the post in question be made within four months and that the persons who had earlier served for a fix term appointment, may also be given age relaxation as they might have become overage by that time. Such persons accordingly were to be given the benefit of age to the extent they had served on the post. While disposing of the S.L.P., the Supreme Court had expressed a hope that the Selectors will take into consideration the past experience of these petitioners and consider the case of such persons sympathetically, if they made any application for appointment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further said that some preference, if possible, may also be given but at the same time clearly mentioned that the Court did not wish to give any direction because it was a public selection and it would not be proper to direct the Selection Board. It was only the observation that some preference for long service experience be extended. Pursuant to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents issued an advertisement for filling up 63 posts of Family Welfare Extension Educators on 22.7.2007. Both the petitioners applied for appointment to the said post. The result of the selection was finalised on 10.4.2008 and the last candidate selected in the general category scored 41.64 marks. The petitioners could not make the grade on merit as they had obtained 37.07 and 37.38 marks respectively. The petitioners thereafter sought information if any preference has been given to them or not in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2871 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 3 }: terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They, however, were not intimated the bifurcation of the marks. The petitioners then filed Civil Writ Petition No.5017 of 2009 containing a similar prayer and praying for preferential treatment for the purpose of appointment in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are referred to as directions. This writ petition, however, was dismissed alongwith number of such writ petitions filed, challenging the appointment of the selected candidates on 24.9.2009. The petitioners still have chosen to file the present writ petition praying for a direction to consider their candidature for appointment to the post of Family Welfare Extension Educator by giving preference for the experience gained by them. Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission and the State. In the reply filed by the Staff Selection Commission, it is pointed out that the petitioners were duly considered and had participated in the selection but could not make the grade on merits. It is accordingly pleaded that the petitioners can not now challenge the said selection after having participated in the process of selection. The detail bifurcation of the marks obtained by the petitioners have also been disclosed, which would show that indeed they were given marks for the experience. Still, both the petitioners had obtained much less marks than the last selected candidate and even less than the marks obtained by candidates shown in the waiting list. The State in its reply, however, would contend that the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Court, once they had participated in the selection and in the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2871 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 4 }: background that the selected candidates have already joined. In addition, the State counsel would also refer to the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed by this Court on 24.9.2009. The question whether the petitioners, in this background, can file another writ petition containing similar relief, thus, would be a question, which can not escape attention. Though, the petitioners have made a mention to the earlier writ petition filed and have also annexed the copy but in a sense the present writ petition is nothing but another attempt to seek the same relief which was earlier sought, but declined by this Court. It is clearly averred in Para 13 of the writ petition that the petitioners had filed Civil Writ Petition No.5017 of 2009 seeking preferential treatment for appointment, which was disposed of but still have chosen to file the present writ petition, seeking the same relief. Leaving this aspect aside, it can be noticed that the petitioners were permitted to participate in the selection and their merit was duly considered. They were given marks for their experience as well but still they could not make the grade on merits. The submission that the petitioners were to be given preferential treatment in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is not fully well placed. If the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is examined minutely, it would show that there was no direction issued in the said order for giving any preferential treatment to the petitioners for the purpose of appointment. Rather, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was well conscious of the fact that the Court did not wish to give any direction of binding nature because it CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2871 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 5 }: was a public selection where it would not be proper to direct the Selection Board. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had only expressed as a hope that the case of the petitioners be considered sympathetically by taking into account their past experience and if possible, some preference may also be given. There was no direction for giving preference for the purpose of appointment, if the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are seen in its entirety. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under:- “Lastly we hope that the selectors will take into consideration their past experience and consider the case of such persons if they apply for the past sympathetically, looking to their past experience, some preference, if possible, may also be given. Though we do not wish to give any direction because it is a public selection where it will not be proper to direct the Selection Board but we observe that the petitioners should be given some preference for their long experience served on this post.” Since the experience of the petitioners have been considered, for which they were even granted marks, but still they could not make the grade, the petitioners can not make a grievance that any observations were ignored though there were no directions, as can be seen. The petitioners have also to get over the order passed by this Court rejecting similar prayer made, when the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE