- (1.)The State of Punjab issued an advertisement on 30.09.1993 seeking to recruit constables. The above advertisement did not disclose the number of vacancies that would be filled up from the selection process. Consequent upon the conclusion of the selection process, appointments of constables came to be made during the period from 1993 to 1995. The afore-stated appointments were sought to be assailed on the ground that appointments were made without reference to the merit list. A challenge to the appointments was also raised on the ground that some appointments were made of persons, who have not even participated in the selection process. The aforesaid challenge made through Writ Petition No. 12860 of 1996, was allowed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court'), while disposing of a bunch of writ petitions, wherein Writ Petition No. 12860 of 1996 was the lead case. It came to be noticed in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench on 17.10.1996 that the aforesaid selection process was with reference to 5159 vacancies (which were anticipated by the State Government). It also emerged, that as against the afore-stated vacancies, 2915 posts were filled up by regularizing SPOs vide an order dated 21.12.1993. And that, out of the selection process conducted in response to the advertisement dated 30.09.2013, 2234 vacancies were filled up from candidates belonging to the general line. In the course of its determination, the Division Bench of the High Court arrived at the conclusion, that appointments of constables had been made in violation of the merit/select list. It is therefore, that the following directions came to be issued on 17.10.1996, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 12860 of 1996 (and connected petitions):
"We therefore dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions:

(i) The Department shall publish the merit list in newspapers (Punjabi Tribune, Dainik Tribunal (Hindi edition) and Punjabi Kesri (Punjabi edition) having wide circulation in the State of Punjab.

(ii) The Department shall take steps to dispense with the service of those who have been appointed by passing the merit. This world necessarily involves giving of show cause notice to such persons and passing of appropriate orders after giving opportunity of hearing to such persons. This exercise shall be completed within next three months.

(iii) The consequential vacancies which may become available shall be filled by appointing candidates strictly in accordance with the merit keeping in view the reservation, if any and;

(iv) In view of the statement made by learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab that there is prohibition on future recruitment, we direct the department that in case any appointment is made in relaxation of the ban imposed by the Government, then merit list prepared by the department shall be taken into consideration while appointing the candidates. This shall be subject to any policy decision regarding the currency of the panel prepared on the basis of selection already made. With respect to the SPOs. we leave it open to the Government to take policy decision regarding their appointments."

(2.)Alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by the High Court, some of the Appellants in the bunch of cases filed contempt petitions. Sarabjit Singh and others preferred C.O.P.C. No. 802 of 1997. The Director General of Police, Punjab filed an affidavit in response to the contempt petition. Paragraph 2 thereof is being extracted hereunder:
"2. It is denied that the Respondents were required to allot constabulary numbers to all the Petitioners. After receipt of the Hon'ble High Court judgment, steps were taken to dispense with the services of 71 candidates who had been allotted constabulary numbers by-passing the merit. Also, those candidates who were above them in the merit list and had earlier not been allotted constabulary numbers were appointed as constables. It is further submitted that though the exact number of available vacancies are not mentioned in the advertisement, 5159 vacancies are anticipated. Out of these vacancies 2925 were consumed for appointment as constables out of SPOs. Remaining vacancies of 2234 available for general line candidates and vacancies falling vacant subsequently have been filled up from the merit list and candidates upto Sr. No. 3069 totalling 2587 candidates have been appointed whereas the Petitioners appeared at Sr. No. 3062, 3659, 3842, 3038, 4276 and 4231 respectively. The name of the Petitioner Sarabjit Singh at Sr. No. 1 and Petitioner No. 4 Harjinder Singh fall in the merit list up 3069, therefore they have been allotted constabulary numbers 13/1104 and 80/1070 respectively. No candidate lower in merit out of the list of selected candidates has been appointed. A policy decision has been taken on 30.05.97 that the merit list prepared in this selection process is over 3 years old and hence stands invalidated. Thus, the order of the Hon'ble court has been fully implemented. A perusal of the factual position depicted in the above affidavit reveals, a meticulous compliance of the directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 17.10.1996."

(3.)Having complied with the directions issued by the High Court, the affidavit also pointed out that a policy decision had been taken by the State Government on 30.05.1997 disbanding the select/merit list prepared in furtherance to the selection process held in response to the advertisement dated 30.09.1993. This determination was made on account of the fact that more than three years had expired. With the disposal of the contempt petition, wherein it came to be concluded, that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court on 17.10.1996 had been complied with, the controversy on merits came to be closed.