- (1.) To cut the long litigative history short it would suffice to say that in a direct recruitment process initiated in 1996 to fill up vacant posts of DPE Masters/Mistresses, both the petitioners were selected on merit, one in the general category, the other in Sportsperson category. The entire selection was challenged by aggrieved persons by way of filing CWP No. 18242 of 1997; Santokh Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others in which a direction was issued on July 15, 1998 to the respondents to prepare a fresh select list after rectifying the mistakes discovered in the preparation of the faulty merit list. Accordingly, a fresh merit list was drawn on March 28, 2000 in compliance of the orders of the Court where the names of the petitioners were included. Some of the candidates whose names had been included in the first list but were dropped in the rectification exercise approached this Court in CWP No. 11061 of 2000 and obtained ad interim stay orders directing the State to maintain a status quo on those earlier selected candidates whose names were not included in the revised merit list. The petition was admitted to regular hearing on July 12, 2002. Likely to be affected by the ad interim orders passed in the aforesaid writ petition and on coming to know of them the petitioners approached this Court by presenting interlocutory applications bearing Civil Miscellaneous No. 12491-92 of 2004 praying for impleading them as necessary parties under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The applications were allowed. But the petitioners were not offered appointment as the matter was sub judice. In the meantime, nine writ petitions were filed by candidates who were similarly situated as the petitioners but were also not offered appointment as DPE Masters/Mistresses though their names were borne in the fresh select list yet again. These nine petitions were filed on different dates during the period of 2000 to 2012. In view of the ad interim stay granted by this Court, all the petitions were clubbed together to be heard and decided on May 07, 2013 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment against the posts advertised and lying vacant. CWP No. 11577 of 2000 and connected cases were disposed of on May 07, 2013 by a detailed judgment, the operative part of which reads as follows:- "Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the request made by the petitioners is just and equitable and, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be disposed of with directions to the Director Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, to consider the claims of the petitioners for appointment/continuing them in service against the 36 vacant posts. This direction and observation is being made in the light of the fact that the process of selection was, for all intents and purposes, finalized in 2000 when the revised merit list was prepared and published. All those candidates, who had any claim or interest against the posts advertised in the year 1994 and 1996, had approached this Court and had claimed their benefits. Even if a candidate now puts forth his claim for appointment on his merit, the said claim cannot be, at this belated stage, entertained because the delay itself would defeat the equity and right of a candidate. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S. Balu and another v. State of Kerala and others, 2009 2 SCT 73 that delay itself defeats equity and relief can be denied on the ground of delay alone even though similar relief stands granted to other similarly situated person, who approached the Court in time. Delay itself defeats the right which has happened in the present case as these candidates who have not pressed their claims till now had accepted the fact accomplish and cannot be now allowed to put forth the claim over which they had been sleeping for years together i.e., for twelve years. If the petitioners are found eligible, the appointment letters be issued within one month and notional consequential benefits be granted to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petitioners in CWP No. 11061 of 2000, 17782 of 2000, 178 of 2001 and 2449 of 2001 be allowed to continue in service. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. This order shall not be treated as a precedent as the same has been passed in equity and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases."
(2.) As a result of the above judgment and order passed on principles of equity, cases of the petitioners were considered and decided favorably but the respondent State took the defence in the case of the present petitioners that the benefit of appointment under the judgment cannot be given to such people who did not approach the Court in time against the selection process finalized in 2000 and the relief granted by Court stands confined to the petitioners alone in the batch of cases. It is not disputed before me that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are final inter parties. It is further not disputed by the State that the 36 posts identified in the order dated May 07, 2013, if are filled by the total number of petitioners in the different writ petitions, some posts of DPE Masters/Mistresses would still be available to accommodate the claim of the petitioners in the event of success of this petition. After orders were pronounced in CWP No. 11061 of 2000 in which the petitioners were the impleaded respondents an application was moved by them bearing CM No. 9256 of 2013 claiming benefit of the judgment. The application preferred by the petitioners came up for hearing on July 26, 2013 when the following order was passed:- "Counsel for the applicant-petitioners prays for withdrawal of the application with liberty to approach the respondents as the applicants were also respondents in the writ petition and are similarly placed and should be granted the benefit of judgment passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 11577 of 2000 (Rajvinder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others) on 7.5.2013. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for."
(3.) In order to avail the benefit of the judgment in the light of the order dated July 26, 2013 the petitioners made representations on August 23, 2013 and August 24, 2013 respectively to the Director of Public Instructions (S.E.), Punjab, Mohali for grant of benefit of the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid petitions. They pleads that no action was taken on the representations compelling the petitioners to approach this Court for relief.;