LPA No.1197 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.1197 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.10.2010 Randhir Singh and others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents AND LPA No.1257 of 2010 (O&M) Ram Mehar and others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. C.M. Chopra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. None for proforma respondents. Ranjan Gogoi, J. (oral) C.M. No.3784-LPA of 2010: This is an application under Rule 2 Chapter 1 Part-C of the High Court Rules & Orders Volume V read with Section 151 CPC for granting leave to make applicants as appellants No.4 to 18. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed as prayed for. LPA Nos.1197 & 1257 of 2010: Heard. LPA No.1197 of 2010 2 Both these Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the orders dated 28th June, 2010, passed in CWP Nos.2061 of 2005 and 11705 of 2005. The appellants by instituting the writ petitions, had sought a writ of mandamus for their appointment against existing vacancies of clerks upto 19th November, 1995 in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 18th September, 1998 in Civil Appeal No.4900-4904 of 1998 titled “Roshni Devi and others vs. State of Haryana and others”, reported in 1998 (8) SCC 39. The directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court may be briefly recapitulated herein below:- “(1) The appointments already made from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 will not be anulled. (2) The last persons who is stated to have been appointed being at Serial No. 4645, persons occupying higher position than him could be considered for appointment to the post of Clerk if there exists any vacancy for them. (3) The vacancy in this context would mean the vacancies which were available in the State of Haryana prior to the advertisement issued for selecting persons for the said post for the year 1995. It is to be made for selecting persons for the said post for the year 1995. It is to be made clear that if no vacancies exist on the aforesaid date, then no further appointment would be made from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 notwithstanding the directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari case. (4) If vacancies did exist on the date as aforementioned, then the appointments from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 could be made strictly on the basis of their merit position in the list. (5) We also do not approve of the inaction on the part of the LPA No.1197 of 2010 3 State Government in not assailing the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari case and now coming up before us making submissions that judgment is practically incapable of being implemented.” The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petitions took note of the stand taken by the respondent State in the written statement filed that no vacancy is available and, therefore, thought it appropriate to dismiss the writ petitions giving rise to the present appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the written statement, on the basis of which the learned Single Judge has recorded the impugned finding with regard to availability of vacancies, was filed in the year 2005 whereas the materials on record which are contemporaneous i.e. of the year 2008, indicates that large number of vacancies, as on 19th November, 1995, were available. It is, therefore, urged that having regard to the said additional information placed on record by the appellants the directions issued by the learned Single Judge should be interfered with. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants attractive as it is, would pale into insignificance in view of a subsequent order of a learned Single Judge of this court dated 3rd August, 2010, passed in CWP Nos.3429 of 2009 and 53 of 2009. A copy of the said order dated 3rd August, 2010, which has been brought on record at the instance of the court in the course of arguments that took place earlier, would indicate that in a very similar matter initiated by other LPA No.1197 of 2010 4 contestants, an additional affidavit dated 14th December, 2009 was filed on behalf of the State giving details of 145 number of vacancies that were available for being filled up as per the order of the Apex Court in Roshni Devi's case. In the said additional affidavit it was clarified that out of 145 vacancies, 22 had already been filled up by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani and 111 vacancies already stood recommended. In all, 12 vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen, were lying unfilled. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Judge by order dated 3rd August, 2010, directed the State to de-reserve the 12 vacancies and fill up the same from the petitioners on the basis of their inter se merit. Learned counsel for the appellants has admitted that no appeal has been filed against the aforesaid order dated 3rd August, 2010 passed in CWP Nos.3429 of 2009 and 53 of 2009. The facts recorded and the directions issued in CWP Nos.3429 of 2009 and 53 of 2009 would indicate that no vacancies would be presently available. So placed, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the direction contained in the order dated 3rd August, 2010 for filling up the twelve vacancies from the petitioners (in CWP 3429 and 53 of 2009) on the basis of their inter se merit, is not correct inasmuch as some of the appellants/petitioners in the present LPAs have got better merit positions. This question cannot be gone into in the present proceedings as the order dated 3rd August, 2010 passed in CWP Nos.3429 of 2009 and 53 of 2009 is not the subject matter of the present appeals. If according to the appellants, they have got higher LPA No.1197 of 2010 5 merit than the petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions and on that basis are entitled to consideration of their cases for appointment, it is always open for them to seek adequate modifications in the order dated 3rd August, 2010 by taking appropriate steps in the matter. For the reasons aforesaid, finding no merit in the writ appeals, both the appeals stand dismissed. (Ranjan Gogoi) Judge (Rajan Gupta) Judge October 13, 2010 'rajpal'