SHASHI BALI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL)

(2.) THIS order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 928, 1317, 2724, 2696, 2226, 2282, 2733, 4280, 4162 and 4363, all of 2000. A Division Bench of this Court vide orders dated 18.2.2000, 21.2.2000, 29.3.2000, 25.4.2000 and 26.4.2000 passed in the aforementioned writ petitions, had directed the respondents to interview the petitioners of the aforementioned writ petitions provisionally for the posts he/she/they had applied by assuming that all the candidates had the requisite qualifications for the post. It was further directed that if they make a grade on merit prepared by the respondents then appointment letters were to be issued to them subject to further orders that may be passed in these petitions. A stipulation to that effect was required to be inserted in the appointment letters. In pursuance to the directions issued by the Division Bench, the petitioners in these petitions were interviewed but they could not able to make a grade and accordingly not selected. However, learned Advocate General has stated that petitioner No. 2 Renu Rani in C.W.P. No. 928 of 2000 has been selected and appointed. THIS statement has been made by the learned Advocate General on the basis of a chart prepared.