BHAVNEET SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue for determination in the batch of above numbered writ petitions is identical, therefore, are clubbed together for disposal. For appreciating the matter in its right perspective, factual matrix has to be noticed precisely:

(2.) Learned Sr. AAG, Mr. Gagan Basotra, would submit that as against the posts advertised in the year 2003 and 2007, in compliance to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 47+22 candidates in excess of what were advertised in the year 1999 were adjusted, as a result thereof no vacancy remained available for selection. It is in the same background said two advertisement notices were withdrawn vide two notices dated 10.07.2008 and 01.07.2008, therefore, writ petitioners have no right on the basis of said two advertisement notices.

(3.) During the course of hearing, learned Sr. AAG was pointedly asked as to what was the number of posts advertised in the year 2003 and 2007 because in the advertisement notices number of vacancies was not given. In case only 69 vacancies were available, then no vacancy could remain available in view of adjustment of 47+22=69 candidates in compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In case some posts were available in excess thereto, against those posts petitioners had a right to compete and while issuing notice in the year 2009, the condition as incorporated in the advertisement notice of the year 2007, as quoted above, should have been incorporated so as to protect the interests of the writ petitioners. In the same background, learned AAG was directed to produce the record, which has been produced.