OM PARKASH DUGGAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ Petition is filed challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4 Smt. Kamlesh Jain as Government Analyst in Haryana Drugs Laboratory, Chandigarh in the year 1976, An advertisement was published calling for filling up the vacancy of Government Analyst in Haryana State as the Haryana Public Service Commission found fault with the Government of Haryana for continuing the service of Smt. Kamlesh Jain on ad -hoc basis. Accordingly an advertisement was issued on 06.06.78 for filling up the post of Government Analyst. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 applied for the said post. The service Commission after interviewing the candidates appointed respondent No. 4 as government Analyst. Against that the respondent No 5 filed a writ petition in this court. The said writ petition bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 1138 of 1978 was dismissed by this court on 15th May, 1979. Then the respondent No. 5 carried the matter to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this court and directed the Service Commission to make a fresh appointment in this regard after considering the claims of respondent No. 5 holding that the earlier recommendation of respondent No. 4 was made even before the expiry of the period given to the respondent No. 5 to submit his explanation in regard to the requisite qualification. Therefore, the Service Commission by the impugned order dated 27.11.1980 appointed respondent No. 4. The petitioner in this writ petition challenged the order of appointment of respondent No. 4 as Government Analyst.

(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as Government Analyst. According to the petitioner, a person to be appointed as a Government Analyst, he must be a graduate in medicine or science or Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Chemistry of a recognised University and also have a satisfactory training in Physiology bacteriology or seropathology or pharmacelogy or micro -biology as provided in the rules. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 did not possess the training in Physiology and therefore she is not qualified to be appointed. At this stage, I do not go into the question as to whether the respondent No. 4 fulfilled the qualifications. It is sufficient to say that the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as Government Analyst under the Haryana Government since 1972 and she has been originally selected on regular basis as a Government Analyst in 1979. The petitioner did not challenge her selection that has been made in 1979. It was only the respondent No. 5 who challenged the selection. After the order of the Supreme Court the Public Service Commission again recommended the respondent No. 4 to be appointed as A Government Analyst. Thus she has been appointed on regular basis as such in the year 1980. Thus it is clear that the respondent No. 4 has been working as a Government Analyst for the last 23 years. The petitioner has been working as a Chemist in the Punjab State Food and Drugs Laboratory, even at the time when he applied for the post of Government Analyst under the State of Haryana. He has also been working as such at the time of filling this writ petition. He is even now continuing to serve under the State of Punjab as a Chemist. It is stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is now aged more than 50 year. This Court cannot give any direction to the Government to appoint the petitioner or any other respondent as Government Analyst. This Court can only direct the appointing authority to make a fresh appointment. Even the order of the Government in the year 1980 is quashed, the petitioner will not get any benefit because he has already crossed the age of 50 years and is therefore ineligible for appointment in the State of Haryana due to his overage. It is a settled proposition of law that the Courts will not issue futile writs. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India is S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, 1981 Supreme Court 136 that the Courts do not issue futile writs. The issuance of any writ in this case is futile because the petitioner will not get any benefit in pursuance of any order in his favour. Further the respondent No. 4 has been working as a Government Analyst in the State of Haryana for the last 23 years and has gained a considerable experience in the post. After a lapse of more than nearly a quarter of the century, it is not desirable to dislodge the 4th respondent as government analyst. It is also admitted that respondent No. 4 also crossed the age of 50. I am therefore, of the opinion that the writ petition has become infructuous. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the writ petition has not become infructuous and that the appointment of respondent No. 4 still to be quashed on the ground of her ineligibility for appointment.

(3.) THE result is, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.