Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rattan Deep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 13 September, 2013
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Fateh Deep Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 13.09.2013
C.M.No.12505-CWP of 2008 in
CWP No.3591 of 2003
Rattan Deep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate,
for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. H.S.Brar, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
M/s Karminder Singh and Gaurav Chopra, Advocates,
for respondent No.3.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The present application has been filed by the petitioner of the 1998 batch of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) to decide the writ petition filed by him in the light of judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.1626 of 2003 titled "Sirandip Singh Panag Vs. State of Punjab & others" decided on 27.05.2008, whereby in respect of some other Judicial Officers of 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 batches, this Court has allowed the writ petitions and the Officers of the said batches were ordered to be reinstated and the appointment letters earlier issued by the State Government were ordered to be restored and thereafter, the High Court was Kumar Vimal directed to issue posting orders to all the petitioners. 2013.09.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.M.No.12505-CWP of 2008 in 2 CWP No.3591 of 2003
The said application came to be filed by the petitioner after the writ petition challenging the termination order dated 07.11.2002 passed in respect of the services of the petitioner was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 09.01.2004 in the light of the earlier Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.8421 of 2002 titled "Amarbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others". The order dated 09.01.2004 reads as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in CWP No.8421 of 2002.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.
Disposed of."
The petitioner has not challenged the order dismissing his writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal. The special leave petitions filed by some of the other aggrieved officers against the judgment in Amarbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others 2003 (5) SLR 398 (CWP No.8421 of 2002) were decided vide a judgment since reported as Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & others Vs. State of Punjab & others 2006 (11) SCC 356. The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of Full Bench of this Court and remitted the matter back to this Court for fresh decision. It is, thereafter, the Full Bench in Sirandeep Singh Panag's case (supra) allowed the writ petitions, as mentioned above. It is soon thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant application for deciding his writ petition in terms of the later Full Bench judgment in Sirandeep Singh Panag's case (supra).
In fact, the services of the Judicial and Executive Officers selected by Punjab Public Service Commission, when Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu was its Chairman were terminated in the year 2002 on account of allegation of large scale manipulations in the conduct of selections. Kumar Vimal 2013.09.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.M.No.12505-CWP of 2008 in 3 CWP No.3591 of 2003 The matter of termination of the services of the Judicial Officers attained finality, with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Vs. State of Punjab & others 2010 (11) SCC 684 rendered in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution in an appeal against the judgment of this Court in Sirandeep Singh Panag's case (supra).
The matters in respect of Executive Officers, has been recently decided by a Five Judges' Bench of this Court in Amarbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others (2013) 3 PLR 542 (CWP No.8421 of 2002). The Full Bench has held that the order of revival passed in the writ petitions of those writ petitioners, who have not approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is without jurisdiction and non-est. It has been observed to the following effect:
"34. In the facts of the present case, vide order dated 18.4.2007 the writ petitions were revived which were dismissed on 7.7.2003. The revived writ petitions were ordered to be listed along with cases remanded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon's case (supra) had allowed all the writ petitions pertaining to 57 petitioners as observed in para 37 of judgment and remanded their case back to this Court. Those appellants were granted liberty to file their objections to the report of the Committee constituted by the High Court. There was no direction by the Supreme Court to extend this liberty to those candidates who had not filed the SLPs in Supreme Court. It may be observed that by consent of the parties no Court/Tribunal or Statutory Authority can assume jurisdiction in the absence of any statutory provision to entertain appeal/revision etc. The decision dated 07.07.2003 dismissing the writ petitions by the Full bench of this Court in Amarbir Singh's case (supra) became final as order was not challenged in appeal in SLP before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The High Court, in absence of any constitutional or statutory provision, could not have revived these writ petitions much less on the ground of remand order passed in appeals filed by 57 petitioners in the Supreme Court. The orders of revival of the above writ petitions of such petitioners who did Kumar Vimal 2013.09.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.M.No.12505-CWP of 2008 in 4 CWP No.3591 of 2003 not file any appeal in the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction and non-
est."
Thus, we find that the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek the restoration of his writ petition, as the order passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition has become final. The petitioner has not challenged the order passed by this Court dismissing his writ petition on 09.01.2004 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. He is not one of the petitioners, whose case was remanded back by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, on the strength of subsequent decision, the order, which has attained finality qua the petitioner, cannot be recalled and the writ petition revived.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present application. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
13.09.2013 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
Vimal JUDGE
Kumar Vimal
2013.09.17 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh