Judgment:
LPA No.852 of 2012 [1].****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.852 of 2011 Date of decision:30.11.2012 Bal Kishan and others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.K.Sikri, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.S.P.Laler, Advocate, for the appellants/petitioneRs.Mr.B.S.Rana, Addl.
A.G., Haryana.
***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This order shall dispose of LPA No.852 of 2012, CWP Nos.14466 & 16172 of 1995 and CWP No.1640 of 1996 as similar facts and law are involved for adjudication in all these cases.
In brief, the facts are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.12.1993, the appellants/petitioners applied for the post of JBT Teachers but as they were having qualification of B.Ed.
instead of JBT, their candidature was rejected.
They approached this Court for appointment to the post of JBT Teachers against the posts lying vacant because of non-availability of trained Teachers but the writ petition was dismissed and their SLP was disposed by the Supreme Court with liberty to approach the respondents for consideration of their claim against the advertisement, which was subsequently issued, wherein the posts earlier advertised remained unfilled were merged.
While dismissing LPA No.852 of 2012 [2].****** the SLP, it was specifically observed by the Supreme Court that it is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court.
However, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, the appellants/petitioners filed representations before the Director, Elementary Education, Haryana, which were rejected on 22.06.2009.
The order of the Director, as has been noticed by the learned Single Judge, is reproduced herein as under: “6.
That in compliance of the said order the petitioners made a representation which received in this office on 28.05.2009 wherein petitioners claimed that they were selected against advertisement No.4/983 and 2147 posts were remained unfilled against this advertisement which were incorporated while making advrt.
No.10/04 and as such, they should be given appointment against these 2147 posts.
It is stated that there were only 232 posts belonging to General Category which were incorporated in advt.
No.10/94.
Rest of the posts were meant for reserved category.
The 233 posts up to merit No.264 belonging to reserved categories with a total of 479 have been given appointment.
All the petitioners belong to Gen.
Category and their selection was beyond the number of advertised posts and as such they could not be given appointment in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hoshiar Singh versus State of Haryana.
It is further stated that the petitioners were not selected against advertisement No.10/94 and as such the question of making appointment against this advertisement does not arise.
In view of the position explained above, the claim of the petitioners is not tenable and the same is hereby rejected.”
The claim of the appellants/petitioners were not accepted because LPA No.852 of 2012 [3].****** they were not selected against the advertisement No.10/94, which was a subsequent advertisement for filling up the posts of JBT TeacheRs.The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants/ petitioners before us is that the unfilled post of Ex-Servicemen should have been offered to the candidates belonging to General category.
However, it was pointedly inquired by us from the counsel for the appellants/petitioners as to whether such a plea was taken in the writ petition and, if yes, has been pressed before the learned Single Judge or not?.
It is fairly conceded by counsel for the appellants/petitioners that the said plea was neither taken in the pleadings not was pressed before the learned Single Judge and as such there is no order in this regard.
Moreover, we have found that selection is of the year 1994 and 18 years have passed since then.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal/writ petitions and hence, the same are hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs.
(A.K.Sikri) (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Chief Justice Judge 30.11.2012 vinod*