IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.929 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 25.11.2009
Jagat Singh.
-----Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana & others.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present:- Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate
for the appellant.
---
ORDER:
1. This appeal has been preferred against order of
learned Single Judge, dismissing writ petition of the appellant,
whereby appointment of respondents No.4 to 6 was challenged
and as a consequence, direction for appointment of the appellant
was sought.
2. Case of the appellant is that six posts of Assistant
Secretary, in the category of Ex-servicemen/wards of Ex-
servicemen, in the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
were advertised in the year 1991, in which the appellant was also
a candidate. The appellant was not selected while respondents
No.4 to 6 were selected. The appellant filed CWP No.721 of
LPA No.929 of 2009 2
1992 which was dismissed on 1.6.1993. The appellant alongwith
some other persons filed Civil Appeal Nos.14910-14911 of 1996
Anup Singh and another v. Haryana State Agriculture
Marketing Board and others before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
which were dismissed vide order dated 22.11.1996, since out of
five persons who had been appointed, services of four had
already been terminated and one had resigned. Vacancies so
accrued were ordered to be filled up by considering the eligible
candidates. Thereafter, in the year 1998, respondents No.3 to 6
were again appointed. Writ petition giving rise to this appeal,
was, thereafter, filed by the appellant, on the ground that on
representation of the appellant, Vigilance Department conducted
an inquiry and found the certificates furnished by the contesting
respondents to be bogus. In reply filed by the Haryana State
Agriculture Marketing Board, it was stated that no case was made
out for terminating services of respondents No.4 to 6. The matter
was duly examined at the Government level and it was found that
the issue of report of Vigilance Department had been duly
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the earlier round of
litigation in a review application. Contesting private respondents
also filed reply, stating that the issue raised in the report of the
Vigilance Department had been duly considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, as the said issue was part of replication filed
before the Supreme Court and thus, the same issue could not be
allowed to be raised again.
LPA No.929 of 2009 3
3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It
was observed that the issue of report of the Vigilance Department
was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same could not
be allowed to be reagitated by way of a separate writ petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute
that the issue of vigilance report had been raised before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of review application, which was
dismissed. This being the position, we are unable to find any
fault with the finding that the matter could not be reopened.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that
after the filing of the writ petition, two other persons, who had
challenged the appointment, namely Anoop Singh and Om
Prakash, were given appointment on 28.7.2000 and case of the
appellant was identical. This aspect was put forward by way of a
replication dated 22.8.2000.
7. Admittedly, on this cause of action, neither any writ
petition was filed nor pending writ petition was amended nor the
contesting respondents were sought to be confronted with the
averment by any order of the Court, so as to call for their
response on this aspect. We also do not find any such argument
having been raised before the Single Bench on this aspect. We
cannot allow this contention to be raised for the first time when
the same was not raised before the Single Bench and for which
the affected parties were never given opportunity to respond.
LPA No.929 of 2009 4
8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the
view taken by the learned Single Judge.
9. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
November 25, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH )
ashwani JUDGE