Ravinder Singh vs State of Haryana and others

Permod Kohli, J.

CM No. 5614 of 2011

This application has been filed for fixing actual date of hearing. It is stated that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has passed order dated 24.08.2011 in SLPs (Civil) No. 28037-28044 of 2009. Earlier this appeal was adjourned sine die to await the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in SLPs,referred to above. Hon''ble Supreme Court passed the following order on 24.08.2011:

Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Leave granted.

Ad interim order dated 07.12.2009 is vacated. We clarify that the pendency of these appeals shall not come in the way of the Respondents in taking recourse to appropriate proceedings in case the impugned judgment is not implemented by the State.

The appeals will be heard on the SLP Paper Books. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties.

(Vinod Lakhina) Court Master

(Kusum Gulati) Court Master.

From the above order, it appears that the earlier interim order dated 07.12.2009 passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court has been vacated and the writ Petitioners have been left free to initiate appropriate proceeding in case the judgment passed by the High Court is not implemented by the State. Based upon the aforesaid order the Appellants in these LP As have prayed for hearing the appeals on merit.

CM is allowed.

With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, main appeal is taken up on the board for final disposal.

LPA No. 992 of 2009

This appeal arise out of a common judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 03.02.2009 whereby bunch of writ petitions are dismissed. Vide the order of the learned Single Judge as many as 11 writ petitions were disposed of. Earlier appeals were preferred in 8 of the 11 writ petitions decided by the learned Single Judge. These appeals have been disposed of by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 01.09.2009.

These 8 appeals were allowed by the Hon''ble Division Bench by a common order dated 01.09.2009. Judgment of the learned Single Judge has been set aside.

The short controversy in this appeal is whether the selection made by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission against the 80 posts of Sub Inspectors in Haryana Police was valid and whether the subsequent order of the Govt. of Haryana dispensing with the services of appointed Sub Inspectors was in accordance with law. On examination of the entire issue, Hon''ble Division Bench while allowing the appeals held as under:

We hold that no doubt it was a matter of administrative policy to create or abolish posts, the said judgments are not applicable to the present case. Even if HSISF was disbanded, the appointment and selection of the Appellants was not for the said posts. We are not concerned with the validity of decision of the authority regarding the said posts but to the termination of the Appellants who were never appointed to the said posts but to the police force. As regards judgments dealing with the question of there being no right to posts which were not advertised, the posts in question were duly advertised and appointment of the Appellants was against the advertised posts. The judgments are, thus, distinguishable.

The question has, thus, to be answered in favour of the Appellants and against the State. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel for the Appellants fairly stated that in case of reinstatement, the Appellants will not insist on financial benefits but only continuity of service.

Accordingly, these appeals are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the State is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Appellant in this appeal was co-Petitioner before the learned Single Judge, whose writ petition was also dismissed. He being similarly situated and the judgment of learned Single Judge having been set aside by this Court, this appeal is allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench. Appellant shall be entitled to the similar relief as granted in the LPA No. 96 of 2009 decided on 01.09.2009.