CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18649 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 14, 2009 Karam Singh Saini .....Petitioner VERSUS Director General of Police, Panchkula 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. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner seeks appointment as a Constable in the category of Backward Class (B). Applications were invited for filling up 3700 posts of temporary constables (general duty), Haryana Police through an advertisement issued on 2.5.2006. Out of this, 450 seats were to be filed from Kurukshetra District. 37 seats were reserved for backward class B-category, out of these 450 total vacancies. The petitioner was applicant against the post reserved for BC-B category in District Kurukshetra. After completing the selection CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18649 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: procedure, the result was declared and published in various newspapers. Name of the petitioner was contained in the list of successful candidates in BC-B category, but he was placed at No.1 in the waiting list. The respondents, however, appointed 36 candidates against 37 posts. When the petitioner learnt that only 36 candidates have been appointed against 37 advertised posts, he approached respondent No.2. While the petitioner was awaiting a communication, another advertisement was issued on 5.10.2007, inviting applications for filling up 1940 posts of constables in Haryana Police in the State. The petitioner thereafter immediately approached respondent No.1 and prayed that he be appointed on the 37th post for which he was in waiting list at No.1. However, no order on the representation given by the petitioner was passed and accordingly he has filed the present writ petition. In response to notice of motion, the respondents have filed reply. It is admitted that initially 37 vacancies were to be filled in Kurukshetra District from BC-B category. It is, however, stated that these vacancies were liable to change at any time in public interest or on administrative ground. It is then disclosed that Director General of Police, upon instructions from the State Government, had allotted 36 posts against 37 reserved for BC-B category to District Kurukshetra. Copy of this memo dated 24.5.2006 is annexed with the reply. The process of selection was accordingly completed and 36 posts filled. The petitioner being at Sr.No.1 of the waiting list was, thus, not appointed. On this basis, the claim made by the petitioner to seek appointment against 16 posts now advertised for BC-B on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18649 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: 5.10.2007 category in Yamuna Nagar District is neither viable nor tenable. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would say that the new posts had been advertised within a period of six months, whereas the waiting list so prepared earlier, as per settled position, would remain valid for a period of one year. On a specific query raised, the counsel could not answer if these posts, which were advertised on 5.10.2007, were available when the initial advertisement in the year 2007 was issued or have arisen subsequently. Apparently these posts have arisen subsequent to the earlier advertisement and as such, all those persons who have now become eligible to apply for appointment against these posts would be deprived of the right of consideration in case these posts were allowed to be filled on the basis of selection made pursuant to the earlier advertisement. 36 vacancies had been advertised which were accordingly filed. The waiting list would remain in operation for these 36 vacancies. If the claim of the petitioner is allowed, it will amount to filling up vacancies more than advertised one, which will not be justified or legal. Accordingly, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and same is, therefore, dismissed. July 14, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE