S.S.Saron, J. - (1.) This order will dispose of the above three contempt petitions as they relate to the violation of the same order dated 17/10/1996 passed in the case of Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP No.12860 of 1996). The facts, however, are taken from COCP No.1443 of 2001.
(2.) The petitioners in the aforesaid contempt petitions are stated to be parties in the case of Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP No.12860 of 1996). They applied for recruitment to the post of Constables in the Punjab Armed Police ('PAP' for short) pursuant to an advertisement which was published by the Government of Punjab in daily newspapers like Punjab Kesari and Punjabi Tribune and also got announced on All India Radio and Doordarshan. A Departmental Selection Committee was constituted to make selections of suitable candidates who had applied for the said post. The committee conducted tests which included physical fitness test. Those who cleared the physical test were to appear in the written test followed by interview. The names of the petitioners figured at different serial numbers in the merit list drawn up by the Departmental Selection Committee. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition filed by them was that despite their selection, the respondents had failed to allot them the constabulary numbers and those who were less meritorious than them and even those who had not been selected by the Departmental Selection Committee, had been appointed. According to the petitioners in the writ petition, the department had adopted a pick and choose policy. The respondents, however, denied the allegations. The stand taken by the respondents in the said writ petition filed by Kulwant Singh etc. (CWP No.12860 of 1996) was that although the advertisement did not contain the number of available vacancies but about 5159 vacancies were anticipated and the Punjab Government sanctioned creation of five Indian Reserve Battalions vide letter dated 21.12.1993. Besides, 2925 vacancies were consumed in the appointment of SPOs and 2234 vacancies were left to be filled from general candidates. The respondents pleaded that the list prepared by the selection committee was approved by the Additional Director General of Police (PAP), Punjab and thereafter appointments were offered to the selected candidates. The respondents denied the allegations of deviation from the merit list. They also denied allegations of backdoor appointments. After consideration of the entire matter, Kulwant Singh's case (supra) was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 17.10.1996 and the following directions were issued:- "We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- (i)The department shall publish the merit list in newspapers (Punjabi Tribune, Dainik Tribune) (Hindi edition), and Punjab Kesari (Punjabi edition) having wide circulation in the State of Punjab. (ii) The Department shall take steps to dispense with the services of those who have been appointed by-passing the merit. This would necessarily involve 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 appointment."
(3.) The petitioners allege that even though they are on merit of the selection list, however, the respondents have issued a public notice dated 18.3.2001 (Annexure-P.2) advertising the filling up of the posts of constables in Punjab Police (Indian Reserve Battalions) by direct recruitment. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners in fact are liable to be appointed keeping in view the above directions particularly those as contained in subpara (iv) of the order dated 17.10.1996 passed in Kulwant Singh's case (supra). As such, the present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the order dated 17.10.1996. The contempt petition was in fact disposed of by this Court on 12.10.2001 by making observations and directions to the respondents that any appointment made by the department in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.3.2001 (Annexure-P.2) shall always be subservient to direction No. (iv) passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. It was also mentioned that the Government should respect the judicial order dated 17.10.1996 passed in Kulwant Singh's case (supra) and should not try to bye-pass the same. Against the order dated 12.10.2001 disposing of the present contempt petition, the respondents filed a review application i.e. RA No.16-CII of 2002 which was dismissed on 1.3.2002 with the observation that no ground for review of the order dated 12.10.2001 was made out. Against the order dated 1.3.2002 dismissing the review application, the respondent herein filed SLP in the Supreme Court in which after grant of special leave was numbered as Civil Appeal No.627 of 2003 and was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 24.1.2003 by passing the following order:- "It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has complied with the directions issued by the High Court contained in order dated 17.10.1996 passed in the Writ Petition (C) No.12860 of 1996. He further submits that operative period of the selection list is also over.;