Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the written statement, the defence taken by the State was that 82 successful candidates from the merit list of provisionally selected candidates had reported for joining and they all were issued appointment on 25.11.2011. The petitioners were qualified in the waiting list (Annexure R/2) which was issued on 30.6.2011 and was valid for one year or till next PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2016.02.02 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh *** recruitment whichever was earlier. The petitioners have been placed at serial numbers 5,6,4,1,18 and 3 respectively. The letters for medical examination were only provisional and not a commitment in regard to the appointment or its context in future. It was accordingly pleaded that on account of Model Code of Conduct which came into operation from 24.12.2011 to 9.3.2012 due to the State Assembly election in the Punjab, the process could not be completed. The appointment letters could not be issued to the candidates selected in wait list in accordance with para No.7

(g) of the standing order 1/2011 (Annexure R/1) as well as para no.6(ii) of the advertisement as the wait list had expired after a period of one year. Therefore, the petitioners could not claim appointments as a matter of right.

From perusal of the above pleadings, one aspect would be clear that is only on account of imposition of the Model Code of Conduct, the petitioners have been denied the appointments. It is not denied that the vacancies had been filled up by the candidates and there were no vacancies on the basis of which wait list could not be operated. A coordinate Bench of this Court on 8.9.2014 in Civil Writ Petition No.21195 of 2012-Amandeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab has noticed that wait list was to remain alive upto 30.6.2012 and the Model Code of Conduct came to an end on 9.3.2012 the why the appointment letters were not issued to the petitioners within intervening three months i.e. till June, 2012 and directed the respondents to file a better affidavit. The order dated 8.9.2014 reads as under:-

"As many as 82 posts out of 100 advertised have been filled up but petitioners in CWP no. 21339 of 2012 are all candidates who are in the waiting list and were medically examined but before the appointment letters could be issued, the Model code of conduct was imposed which came in existence on 24.12.2011 and PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2016.02.02 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh *** continued upto 9.3.2012. The waiting list was declared alongwith the result on 30.6.2011 and according to the case of the respondents it has remained alive till 30.6.12 i.e upto the period of one year.
The solitary reason given for denying appointment to the petitioners is imposition of model code of conduct and extinguishing of waiting list in June, 2012.
It is not understandable if code of conduct came to an end on 9.3.2012 then why the appointment letters were not issued to the petitioners within intervening three months i.e. till June 2012. The Court would have ordinarily proceeded against person who has filed this affidavit and imposed exemplary costs for more than one reason. Apart from reasoning given and noticed above a prayer has been made that a better affidavit be permitted to be filed. The Court deprecates such a practice and construes it to be an obstruction in the course of justice. If an affidavit is filed in response to the petition it is always expected to be a complete reply in itself and the respondents cannot be permitted to react atleast on facts once the proceedings are being heard. It may be noticed that such a prayer has been made after the respondents were confronted with such uncomfortable question. Before the Court proceeds against respondents who have filed affidavit in this regard, an opportunity is granted to the learned counsel for the respondents to seek clarificatory instructions.