KANWALJEET SINGH Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is directed against the impugned selection of private respondents to the post of Meter Reader.

(2.) While issuing notice of motion on 17.5.1994, a Division Bench of this court directed the respondent-board to furnish the particulars of selected candidates alongwith their addresses to the counsel for the petitioners within one week. Thereafter, in compliance of the order dated 17.5.1994, respondent board supplied the particulars of selected candidates to learned counsel for the petitioners and they were impleaded as party-respondents. The writ petition was admitted vide order dated 4.8.1994 and was directed to be put up for hearing in the month of November, 1994. However, actual hearing could not materialise. That is how, this court is seized of the matter.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners at the very outset, fairly states that in the normal circumstances, this petition would have been rendered infructuous because of efflux of time. He further submits that the present writ petition, as a matter of fact, has been rendered infructuous qua petitioners no.2, 4, 8 and 9. However, he submits that the present writ petition, in view of the categoric averments taken in the additional affidavit dated 2.7.2012 filed alongwith CM No.8383 of 2012, survives qua petitioners no.1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioners no.1, 3 , 5, 6, and 7 are ready and willing to forego their claim for back wages and will be satisfied, if they are considered for appointment, from the date their batchmates were appointed, for all other intents and purposes, except arrears of salary.