Cwp No. 16890 of 2011(Oandm). Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1127579
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
AppellantCwp No. 16890 of 2011(Oandm).
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
cwp no.16890 of 2011 -1- **** in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.16890 of 2011(o&m). date of decision:10. 02.2014 gurvinder singh and others ...petitioners vs. state of haryana and others ...respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice gurmeet singh sandhawalia ***** present: mr. pankaj midha, advocate for the petitioners. mr. kshitij sharma, assistant advocate general, haryana for respondents no.1 and 2. mr. jagbir singh, advocate for mr. ramesh hooda, advocate for respondents no.3 and 4. **** g.s.sandhawalia, j.(oral).1. the present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the action of respondents of refusing to issue roll numbers for the screening test for the post of lecturers which was to be held on 11.9.2011 and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue roll numbers for the screening test and allow them to appear in the written examination and to participate in the counselling/interview etc.2. on 9.9.2011, the following order was passed:- “notice of motion for 26.9.2011. in the meanwhile, the petitioners shall be allowed to participate in the screening test scheduled for 11.9.2011. it is made clear to the petitioners that in case the dispute regarding their eligibility is decided against them, their kumar pardeep 2014.02.19 10:19 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh cwp no.16890 of 2011 -2- **** appearance in the screening test shall not entitle them to any relief. a copy of this order be handed over to counsel for the petitioners under signatures of the court secretary of this bench.”. 3. on 2.12.2011, the following order was passed:- “as prayed for, adjourned to 29.2.2012 for arguments. meanwhile, it is clarified that the respondents may finalize the selection process and make appointments, which, however, shall be subject to final outcome of this writ petition.”. 4. on 24.1.2014, the following order was passed:- “counsel for the state, on instructions from shri surinder singh, stenographer, cdlmgec, panniwala mota, sirsa points out that in pursuance of the interim orders dated 09.09.2011 and 02.12.2011, the petitioners have failed to clear the screening test and therefore, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. no one is present on behalf of the petitioners. in the interest of justice, adjourned to 10.02.2014. necessary affidavit may be filed before the date fixed.”. 5. in pursuance of the aforesaid order, affidavit of mr. m.l.bansal, director-principal, chaudhary devi lal memorial government engineering college, panniwala mota, district sirsa has been filed in court today. the same is taken on record. kumar pardeep 2014.02.19 10:19 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh cwp no.16890 of 2011 -3- **** 6. in the said affidavit, it has been deposed that the petitioners were allowed to participate in the screening test held on 11.9.2011. the petitioners no.4 to 6 and 14 to 18 were declared successful in the screening test and the successful candidates appeared before the senior staff selection committee on the respective dates and only three candidates were declared successful out of which two belonged to electronics and communication engineering and one belonged to civil engineering. the petitioners were considered in the selection process and they were not selected as they were not found suitable as per their final score in the merit list. the entire selection process has already been completed and the petitioners have not been successful to stand in the list of selected candidates. therefore, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.7. thus, from the above sequence of events, it is clear that the prayer of the petitioners was for allowing them to appear in the screening test. accordingly, the necessary relief had been granted to the petitioners by virtue of interim order and the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. however, if the petitioners wish to raise any fresh dispute on their non selection on merits, they are at liberty to file a fresh petition. 10.02.2014 (g.s.sandhawalia) pka judge kumar pardeep 2014.02.19 10:19 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh
Judgment:

CWP No.16890 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16890 of 2011(O&M). Date of decision:

10. 02.2014 Gurvinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA ***** Present: Mr. Pankaj Midha, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Jagbir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. **** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

(Oral).

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the action of respondents of refusing to issue roll numbers for the screening test for the post of Lecturers which was to be held on 11.9.2011 and for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue roll numbers for the screening test and allow them to appear in the written examination and to participate in the counselling/interview etc.

2. On 9.9.2011, the following order was passed:- “Notice of motion for 26.9.2011. In the meanwhile, the petitioners shall be allowed to participate in the screening test scheduled for 11.9.2011. It is made clear to the petitioners that in case the dispute regarding their eligibility is decided against them, their Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.19 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.16890 of 2011 -2- **** appearance in the screening test shall not entitle them to any relief. A copy of this order be handed over to counsel for the petitioners under signatures of the Court Secretary of this Bench.”. 3. On 2.12.2011, the following order was passed:- “As prayed for, adjourned to 29.2.2012 for arguments. Meanwhile, it is clarified that the respondents may finalize the selection process and make appointments, which, however, shall be subject to final outcome of this writ petition.”. 4. On 24.1.2014, the following order was passed:- “Counsel for the State, on instructions from Shri Surinder Singh, Stenographer, CDLMGEC, Panniwala Mota, Sirsa points out that in pursuance of the interim orders dated 09.09.2011 and 02.12.2011, the petitioners have failed to clear the screening test and therefore, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. No one is present on behalf of the petitioners. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 10.02.2014. Necessary affidavit may be filed before the date fixed.”. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, affidavit of Mr. M.L.Bansal, Director-Principal, Chaudhary Devi Lal Memorial Government Engineering College, Panniwala Mota, District Sirsa has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.19 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.16890 of 2011 -3- **** 6. In the said affidavit, it has been deposed that the petitioners were allowed to participate in the screening test held on 11.9.2011. The petitioners No.4 to 6 and 14 to 18 were declared successful in the screening test and the successful candidates appeared before the Senior Staff Selection Committee on the respective dates and only three candidates were declared successful out of which two belonged to Electronics and Communication Engineering and one belonged to Civil Engineering. The petitioners were considered in the selection process and they were not selected as they were not found suitable as per their final score in the merit list. The entire selection process has already been completed and the petitioners have not been successful to stand in the list of selected candidates. Therefore, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

7. Thus, from the above sequence of events, it is clear that the prayer of the petitioners was for allowing them to appear in the screening test. Accordingly, the necessary relief had been granted to the petitioners by virtue of interim order and the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. However, if the petitioners wish to raise any fresh dispute on their non selection on merits, they are at liberty to file a fresh petition. 10.02.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka JUDGE Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.19 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh