IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1003/2009 and CWPs No.1745/2009 & 1911/2009 Decided on:26.8. 2009 ______________________________________________ 1. CWP No.1003/2009 Gopal Krishan. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and others. … Respondents. 2. CWP No. 1745/2009 Gopal Krishan and others. …Petitioners. Versus Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and others. …Respondents. 3. CWP No. 1911/2009 Chander Mohan Rana and others. …Petitioners. Versus Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 For the petitioners : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate (in CWPs No.1003 and 1745/2009). Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate in CWP No. 1911/2009. For the Respondents:Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate for respondent No.1 in all the petitions. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals for respondent-State in all the petitions. _____________________________________________________ Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment at the admission stage. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are that the petitioners have assailed the condition imposed by the respondent-corporation whereby only candidates who have passed out from the Government owned/managed Engineering/Polytechnic colleges/institutions located in Himachal Pradesh were eligible for appointment to the post in question. The decision was taken by the respondent-corporation initially to filling up 50% vacancies on batch-wise basis. The respondent-corporation during the pendency of the petitions has requested the Principal Secretary (MPP and Power) vide communication dated 9.6.2009 to grant exemption from making 50% future batch-wise recruitment against the post of A.E. (Civil), A.E. (Electrical), A.E. (Mechanical), J.E. (Civil and J.E. (Electrical). The Managing Director of the Corporation has assigned cogent reasons seeking exemption from filling up the posts on 3 batch-wise basis. Emphasis in communication dated 9.6.2009 was to ensure that only meritorious candidates are recruited. The State Government vide communication dated 12.8.2009 exempted the Corporation from making 50% recruitment on batch-wise basis in respect of technical posts and has allowed the Corporation to fill up 100% posts on direct recruitment basis through the recruitment agencies. This communication has been placed on record by way of application bearing CMP No. 5694/2009. We are of the considered view that in view of the subsequent development, the cause of action as projected in these petitions does not survive. In view of letter dated 12.8.2009, new criteria for making recruitments to the posts in questions has been laid down. The Court is of the firm opinion that it is always advisable to fill up the posts by way of direct recruitment instead of restricting it to few persons on batch-wise basis. In case the recruitment is made on batch-wise basis, the merit suffers. It also violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The policy of the State to restrict the appointment to 50% on batch-wise basis is against the principle of merit and promotes mediocracy. In case of direct recruitment, there is every possibility for the employer to recruit most meritorious candidates. The Court approves the decision of the State Government whereby it has exempted the respondent-corporation from filling up the posts on batch-wise basis. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, since the recruitment is not to be made on batch-wise basis, the petitioners are eligible to compete under 100% direct recruitment. 4 Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 26.8.2009. *awasthi*