Letters Patent Appeal No. 407 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Letter Patent Appeal No. 407 of 2011 Date of decision: March 7, 2011 Pawan Kumar and others --- Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others --- Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN --- Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The appellants herein are some of the unsuccessful petitioners who along with others had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 21703 of 2010 which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge, vide order dated 5.1.2011. The case has a chequered background. However, the facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of the appeal are that pursuant to advertisement No.4 dated 7.9.1997, applications were invited for the posts of 1055 Patwaris in the Revenue Department, Haryana, as well as other departments including 71 posts meant for the Panchayat Department. The appellants and some others, feeling eligible, applied for Letters Patent Appeal No. 407 of 2011 2 the said posts. They were subjected to written test and also appeared in the interview. They were declared successful and consequently selected to the post of Patwari. Since despite selection, appointments were not offered to the appellants and others, i.e. the persons selected in the above process, they filed Civil Writ Petition No. 16605 of 1999, titled “Jai Bhagwan Sharma and others Versus State of Haryana and others” and a few more, praying for issuance of a direction to the respondent-authorities to issue appointment letters to them. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Government of Haryana, Department of Revenue, (respondent No.1 in Civil Writ Petition) issued a letter dated 16.3.2000 abolishing all the posts lying vacant for more than two years from 29.2.2000. The sole stand taken on behalf of the answering respondents therein was that the posts were vacated due to financial stringencies and mere selection of a person to any particular post does not confer any legal right of appointment on such person. The writ petitions were later allowed by order dated 23.5.2000 directing the respondent-authorities to appoint the appellants and others. That order non-suited the Government of Haryana and as a result, a Special Leave Petition was preferred there against, bearing No. 13357 of 2000, titled as ‘State of Haryana and others Versus Jai Bhagwan Sharma and others’. The Apex Court set aside the order of this Court, dated 23.5.2000 and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Supreme Court also directed the parties to maintain status quo in regard to filling up the posts during the pendency of the petition in this Court. Letters Patent Appeal No. 407 of 2011 3 Later on, another development took place and the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Panchkula (for short “HPSC”) advertised 71 posts of Patwaris by issuing an advertisement dated 31.7.2004, which were mentioned to be purely meant for the Panchayat Department. The vigilant prospective incumbents who had been earlier selected put resistance to the said move of the Government by moving an application that such course could not have been adopted by the Government, especially in view of the fact that when an order of status quo passed by the Apex Court was operating. The respondent- authorities, in turn, furnished reply stating that earlier 1055 posts were advertised that were totally meant for the Revenue Department and not for other departments whereas the 71 posts under reference were advertised pursuant to a requisition received from the Panchayat Department. The Government, however, after being cornered out by this Court on certain aspects ultimately, cancelled the advertisement issued later for 71 posts of Patwari for the Panchayat Department. The writ petition filed by the appellants and others was, however, dismissed vide order dated 2.8.2005 which led to filing of Special Leave Petition in the Apex Court by the selected candidates. The apex Court vide order dated 28.9.2007 remitted the matter to the High Court for reconsideration. Thereafter, finally, Civil Writ Petition No. 16605 of 1999 was dismissed by this Court and while doing so, it was directed to the State to give relaxation in eligibility to the appellants and others as and when fresh selections to the post of Patwari were made. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition vide order dated 23.7.2009 and review application vide order dated 3.12.2009. Letters Patent Appeal No. 407 of 2011 4 When the matters pertaining to appointment of Patwaris were still pending, the HPSC published an advertisement dated 6.5.2007 and a public notice dated 10.11.2009 whereby it was notified for information of the writ petitioners claiming appointment to the posts of Patwaris that they were entitled to relaxation in upper age limit. The appellants and others came to know that the HPSC had advertised 259 posts of Revenue Patwari which included 188 posts for the Revenue Department and 71 posts for other departments. The writ petitioners in the different writ petitions filed in that behalf including the appellants then made representation to the respondents that 71 posts of Patwaris advertised for other departments vide advertisement No. 5 of 2007 dated 6.5.2007 were the same against which they had been selected on 22.5.1999. But the representation so made by them did not yield any result. Rather the HPSC took another turn when it published another notice dated 19.3.2010 stating that keeping in view a large number of applications and the conditions of the advertisement, the Commission had decided to short-list the candidates for interview in the respective category on the basis of their academic qualifications. By virtue of another notice dated 19.6.2010, the HPSC notified the date for holding of interview for the posts of Revenue Patwari for Revenue Department, Haryana and other departments. The appellants and others went on approaching and lodging protest against non-consideration of their cases for appointment against the 71 posts of Patwaris for which they claimed to have been selected way back in the year 1999. The respondent-department, however, despite resistance made by the appellants and others, went on holding the interview for 259 posts of Patwaris including the 71 posts. Letters Patent Appeal No. 407 of 2011 5 It was in this backdrop, the appellants and others filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the advertisement dated 6.5.2007, Annexure P-13, qua 259 posts of Patwaris and the selection process initiated on the basis thereon, as according to them, the said posts included those 71 posts as well against which they had already been selected on 22.5.1999. A prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus was also made directing the respondent-authorities to appoint the appellants and others against the said vacant posts of Patwaris. Prayer for stay of selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement, Annexure P-13, during the pendency of the writ petition was also made. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 5.1.2011. This is how the matter is in appeal now under clause X of the Letters Patent Act. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. The appellants had earlier approached this Court by way of writ petition which was dismissed on 11.2.2009 by holding that they did not have any right for selection after expiry of period of 10 years from the date of issue of the advertisement. The said order was upheld by the Supreme Court vide order dated 23.7.2009 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15230 of 2009. The said petitioners have preferred the instant appeal against the order dated 5.1.2011 of the learned Single Judge whereby their claim for offering them appointment on the basis of earlier applications which had been submitted against 71 posts of Letters Patent Appeal No. 407 of 2011 6 Revenue Patwaris had been rejected. Learned Single Judge, while declining the claim of the appellants had noticed as under: “This order when challenged by the respondents by way of S.L.P. the matter was remitted back for re-consideration and when the writ petition was dismissed, the petitioners challenged the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter was once again remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration. Finally, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 11.2.2009 and the order of this Court was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.7.2009. It is, thus, evident that the claim of the petitioners stood extinguished in the year 2009 qua these posts when the S.L.P. was dismissed. The respondent/State thereafter initiated a fresh process of selection in which the petitioners were free to participate as the respondents had by virtue of the notice Annexure P-14, in various newspapers, granted the concession of relaxation in upper age limit for the said advertisement qua the petitioners and it was even submitted that the persons who could not apply in response to the advertisement dated 6.5.2007, were free to apply fresh by 30.11.2009. It was made clear that the relaxation in upper age limit was only for the persons who had preferred the writ petitions before this Court and was not available to any other person. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts, the petitioners are not entitled to any preferential right of selection, merely because they had succeeded in 1997, which Letters Patent Appeal No. 407 of 2011 7 selection did not crystallize into an appointment, leading to a spate of litigation which ultimately did not result into any fruitful benefit to the petitioners. I am, thus, of the opinion that the selection which has been initiated by the respondents, deserves to be carried out in fairness, which every selection process is expected to adhere to, and the petitioners cannot be given any other benefit, except the one which has rightly been granted by the State Government to enable the petitioners to overcome their handicap of age.” In the wake of the circumstances and the observations of the learned Single Judge, we find no illegality or perversity in the order under appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out with reference to any material on the record or otherwise any infirmity in the impugned order so as to persuade this Court to take exception to the view taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) March 7, 2011 JUDGE *rkmalik*