Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: selection process completed in Badal Chauhan vs State Of H.P And Others on 14 December, 2021Matching Fragments
Distinction has also sought to be drawn by the petitioners from the case of Puneet Sharma on the ground that in said case, the selection process was still under way and the appointments were not made, whereas in the case of petitioners they were already appointed and hence the ratio of Puneet Sharma's case was not applicable to their case;
(iv) this Court vide its judgment dated 05.07.2021 had not specifically directed respondent No.3 to revise the merit list and said respondent being only recruiting agency had become functus officio after completion of selection process. In Puneet Sharma's case, there was a specific direction to re-do .
23. As regards objection of petitioners that this Court vide its judgment dated 05.07.2021 had not specifically directed respondent No.3 to revise the merit list and said .
respondent being only recruiting agency had become functus officio after completion of selection process and also that In Puneet Sharma's case, there was a specific direction to re-do the selection process, whereas the same was lacking in judgment dated 05.07.2021, we again find no merit. Noticeably, the common judgment dated 05.07.2021 of this Court in petitions of Graduate Engineers as also the order dated 20.09.2021 passed in CMP No. 9543 of 2021 have attained finality. It being so, respondents were under clear mandate to implement the judgment in Puneet Sharma's case. The ratio of which was declared to apply mutatis mutandis to all the cases decided through common judgment dated 05.07.2021. This fiat was issued after specifically holding that the parties were at ad idem on the issue in question in the petitions by the Graduate Engineers being squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Puneet Sharma's case supra. In view of this position, the contention of petitioners, as noticed above becomes meaningless and cannot be accepted especially in light of the following specific averments made by petitioners in paragraph 18 of the petition: