Suman Rani And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

Jagmohan Bansal, J

As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from

CWP-12863-2001.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 08.08.2001 (Annexure P-9) whereby her services were dispensed with.

Order dated 08.08.2001 passed by Superintendent of Police, Hisar reads as:

“ As Suman Rani d/o Sh. Megh Raj at present working under constabulary number 214/HSR could not get selected for the post of Constable, in recruitment process initiated in compliance of orders dated 17.1.2001 of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 15034-15036 of 1996 titled Suresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others, so her services are hereby dispensed with immediate effect in terms of orders passed in above civil appeal by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Orders be booked in order book.”

The petitioner was recruited as Constable in Haryana Police on 31.08.1995. An FIR was registered against her and she was arrested. She was issued show cause notice alleging that she had submitted a forged certificate. She filed reply to show cause notice. She requested respondent to reinstate her but respondent discharged her from service. She preferred CWP-443-1999 before this Court which was allowed. The respondent permitted her to join service, however, again placed under suspension and initiated departmental inquiry. She again came to be terminated vide impugned order dated 08.08.2001 on the ground that initial recruitment process stands vitiated by Courts and as per orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court, fresh recruitment process was initiated wherein she did not come to be selected. It is apt to notice that she did not participate in the fresh selection process.

The petitioner was discharged on 08.08.2001. Notice of motion was issued by this Court, however, there was no stay in her favour. A period of 25 years from the date of impugned order has passed away.

In both the petitions, there is no representation of the petitioner(s). It appears that with efflux of time, they have lost their interest to pursue the matter.

In the backdrop, present petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed with liberty to petitioners to move appropriate applications within three months from today, if cause survives.

Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.