- (1.) These are intra-court appeals, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against a judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 22.07.2009, vide which the civil writ petitions preferred by the respondents herein were accepted and the order dated 15.12.1993 (Annexure P-21) was set aside, vide which the appellants (who are referred to as private respondents in the judgment being assailed) were placed above the respondents in the seniority list of Clerks. A brief background, to an extent it would be essential and expedient, would be in order.
(2.) In the year 1979, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (for short, 'the Board'), constituted under The Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act 1961'), advertised 15 posts of Clerk-cum-Auction Recorder. However, 266 Clerks-cum-Auction Recorders including the appellants were recruited by the Board during the months of April to June, 1979. As the recruitments were made far in excess than the advertised posts, services of 251 appointees were terminated vide order dated 04.09.1979. As many as eight writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.3299, 3467, 3471, 3502, 3503, 4302, 4323 and 4342 of 1979 were preferred in this court by the terminated employees including the appellants. And vide order dated 31.03.1980, the said writ petitions were dismissed by this court and terminations were held to be valid. However, on behalf of the Board, this court was assured: "During the course of arguments, Shri Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, even gave an assurance That though at the moment there is no proposal to any sort to make a fresh recruitment to these posts, yet as and when such recruitment to be made, the cases of the petitioners would be duly considered for such employment. In view of this, I also do not find any merit in the allegation of malafide leveled by the petitioner. As has been held earlier that the petitioners are the junior most person according to the merit list prepared at the time of the interview, their services have been rightly terminated in preference to those who have been allowed to continue."
(3.) Subsequently, on 17.05.1980, the Board again advertised 102 posts of Clerks-cum-Auction Recorders and applications were invited from the eligible candidates. Resultantly, the persons who were assured on behalf of the Board, represented for consideration of their claim. But as no heed was paid to their cause, they again approached this court in a batch of writ petitions challenging the fresh advertisement to fill up 102 posts of Clerks-cum-Auction Recorders, vide advertisement dated 17.05.1980. And also prayed that the Board be directed to re-employ them in terms of the assurance given to this court. The said writ petitions were allowed by the Division Bench of this court in case titled Rajbir Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others,1993 1 SLR 38. And this court held as thus: "....For the reasons aforesaid, we allow these 10 petitions and direct the respondents to give opportunity of re-employment as Clerk-cum- Auction Recorders and Arrival Recorders to the petitioners and other retrenched workmen falling in the category of the petitioners whose services had been terminated enblock alongwith the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act in the manner provided in rule 77. Each petition is allowed costs...";