- (1.) This is a batch of 11 Letters Patent Appeals which have arisen out of judgment dated 03.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions and 14 writ petitions claiming same relief. These 11 Letters Patent Appeals have emanated therefrom in the following manner:- LPA Nos.1509, 1579 and 1768 of 2010 have been filed by the petitioners and non-petitioners of CWP Nos.3429 of 2009 and 53 of 2009 challenging the judgment and order dated 3.8.2010 passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions. By the aforesaid order, the learned single Judge had identified the number of available vacancies in respect of the subject matter of the writ petition to be 12 and had directed the same to be filled up on the basis of inter-se merit of the writ petitioners. Such of the petitioners, who are appellants before us, contend that the number of the vacancies worked out by the learned single Judge as 12 is incorrect and there were more vacancies whereas the appellants who are non petitioners, apart from supporting the aforesaid stand, also contend that the learned single Judge ought to have directed appointments on the basis of inter-se merit of the selected candidates and not restricted such appointments to the inter-se merit of the writ petitioners only. LPA Nos.289 and 294 of 2011 have been filed by the State against the very same order of the learned single Judge dated 3.8.2010 insofar as the direction for appointment on the basis of inter-se merit of the writ petitioners is concerned. LPA Nos.416 and 168 of 2011 and LPA No.1616 of 2010 arise out of more or less similar orders passed by two other Single Benches whereas Civil Writ Petitions No.5972 of 2011 and 22871 of 2010 and other writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals have been filed in connection with the same matter raising similar issues.
(2.) This is how all these 11 Letters Patent Appeals were clubbed together and heard by us. At this stage itself we would like to mention that numbers of miscellaneous applications have also been filed in these proceedings by many others who were not parties to the writ petitions decided by the learned Single Judge(s) or even in the writ petitions bearing No. 5972 of 2011 and 22871 of 2010. However, the applicants in these Civil Miscellaneous Applications are also those persons who had participated in the selection and are claiming appointments to the posts on the basis of their inter-se merit in the merit list prepared by the State on the basis of the said examination. Thus the scope of the writ petitions which were decided by the learned Single Judge(s) has been expanded considerably by filing two writ petitions as well and the entire gamut of dispute is before us in these 11 Letters Patent Appeals and 14 civil writ petitions and miscellaneous applications. To put in nut-shell, the petitioners who have filed the writ petitions which have been allowed by the learned Single Judge (s) are pressing that the appointments be offered only to these writ petitioners who had approached the Court well in time. Others who had not come to the Court earlier and are now before us in the form of two writ petitions filed in the year 2011 or other writ petitions or by way of miscellaneous applications filed even thereafter in those writ petitions submit that when the appointments are to be made it should be on the basis of the merit list of the selected candidates and cannot be restricted to the original petitioners only.
(3.) Under what circumstances such disputes arose can be gauged from the following factual backdrop:- The Selection Service Board Haryana issued Advertisement No. 4 of 1987 dated 22.07.1987 inviting applications for recruitment for the post of Clerks in the various departments in the State of Haryana. A list of 5373 candidates was declared on 15.10.1989 and out of which candidates upto merit No. 4645 were appointed.;