Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishnu Dev And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 October, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.23725 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.23725 of 2013
Date of Decision: 29.10.2013
Vishnu Dev and another
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral)
This petition has been filed in resentment to the filling up of the newly created post of Senior Law Officer in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha Secretariat by direct recruitment by designing a rule which makes candidates with two years' experience at the Bar eligible for consideration. It is also the case of the petitioners that the amended rules of service have been notified in 2012 and note (iii) thereof carves an exception to the normal rule and lays down that in case of non-availability of qualified/experienced persons from within the office, the posts of different categories will be filled in by direct recruitment. It is the say of the petitioners that the 4th respondent - Shobhit Kumar Sharma, s/o Sh. Ashwani Markande, r/o 58-L, Model Town, Rohtak, Haryana is the person chosen to fill the post of Senior Law Officer even though the selection process has not come to an end under advertisement No.9/2013 issued in the Press to fill up the ex cadre post of Senior Law Officer. The apprehension of the petitioners has not yet been by appointment and, therefore, it appears to Mittal Manju 2013.10.31 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.23725 of 2013 -2- me that the writ petition is premature. This Court would by shy of interfering in a matter of this kind where the appointments are yet to be made in view of the words of caution laid down in the case of Mrs. Kaunda S.Kadam and others vs. Dr. K.K. Soman and others, AIR 1980 S.C. 881. Even selection does not clothe a person with an indefeasible right to appointment.
Keeping in view the limitations in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, this writ petition is dismissed as premature. However if the apprehensions of the petitioners turn out to be true they would without doubt remain at liberty to challenge such appointment and the newly formulated rule of recruitment itself.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 29.10.2013 JUDGE manju Mittal Manju 2013.10.31 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh