SUNDER LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case had been directed to be posted before this Court along with C.W.P. No.6327 of 1995. The said writ petition has been dismissed for default of non prosecution and therefore, the said decision cannot be of any assistance. The case would be required to be disposed of on its own merits.

(2.) THE petitioner has sought for relief of quashing of the notification issued on 28.02.1991 regularizing the services of private respondents who were appointed on ad hoc basis and who had completed two years of service on 31.12.1990. The relief of quashing the regularization order has been sought at the instance of the petitioner on the ground that the notification had been issued after announcing the select list on 28.04.1994 brought through a regular selection process and when the petitioner had been shown as selected. There had been a fresh selection notification which was issued on 22.01.1995 for filling up 12 posts of Opthalmic Assistants for which 100% reservation had been provided wholly in violation of settled principles of law under which 5 posts were reserved for SC and 7 posts were reserved for ESM. The challenge was on the ground that 100% reservation of posts was unconstitutional. The petitioner would contend that 21 posts of the Opthalmic Assistants were still vacant and that he should be considered for appointment.

(3.) THE second portion of the relief claimed in the writ petition is to quash the notification issued providing for filling up of 12 posts wholly through a process of reservation. Though I would find that such a notification was not valid, I cannot find any reason to interfere in favour of the petitioner for being considered to the post of Opthalmic Assistants. The case is of the year 1996 at the instance of a person who was seeking for an appointment on the basis of the initial select list that had been issued. I have already observed that mere inclusion of a person in the select list does not give a vested right to appointment so long as the appointment to that post was not considered and filled up. If through an independent selection process some posts were notified, I cannot secure to the petitioner the benefit now at this length of time after nearly 15 years. The relief sought for in the petition has become stale and it is not possible to secure to the petitioner any relief.