PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. R.N. BATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the respondent(s) submits that the direction contained in order, dated 19th June, 2013, in the case of Harpal Singh & others versus HRTC & another, in CWP No. 3370 of 2013, which was the basis for allowing the petition preferred by the respective respondents, in these matters, has already been implemented. Each of the petitioners have been appointed as per the direction contained in Harpal Singh and others supra.

(2.) IN that case, nothing survives for consideration in these matters. In any case, no contempt action is warranted. We place on record submission made by the counsel for the respondent(s) that the respondents are in the process of challenging the decision in Harpal Singh & others versus HRTC & another and the action taken by the respondents to comply the directions in the said decision is without prejudice and would be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Apex Court in the proposed proceedings.

(3.) THAT may be subsequent cause of action for which the petitioners may have to resort to appropriate remedy. Our understanding of the direction contained in Harpal Singh's case is only to appoint persons empanelled in the list prepared for the year 2006 up to the year 2012 and after exhausting that list, issue fresh advertisement for the remaining posts. So far as the petitioners are concerned, each of them have now been appointed by the respondents. That is sufficient compliance of the direction contained in Harpal Singh's case as also the direction given in the respective petitions filed by these petitioners.