DEEPAK ROSHAN,J. - (1.) Heard through V.C.
(2.) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for the following reliefs; (A) For quashing of Letter dated 26.07.2013 Annexure16 at page 128 by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment has been rejected on the ground that the life of panel has been lapsed without considering the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the present petitioner's case earlier on 20.04.1999 as contained in Annexure-6 at page 83 and dated 24.04.2012 Annexure-14 at page 124. (B) For declaring the action of the respondents as illegal in saying the 1977 circular speaks about one year validity of the panel though the same was amended which will be evident from Annexure-1 (Series) which says the panel will continue till the appointment. (C) For declaring the action of respondent is illegal in saying the panel of 1992 has been cancelled without bringing on record any document before this Court ever while disposing of the writ application twice by this Hon'ble Court in favor of the petitioners also the action is illegal that they have appointed 34 persons in 2001 and 24 persons in 2006. (D) For declaring that the life of the panel made alive due to two orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in case of the petitioners as contained in Annexure-6 & 14 and also in view of Annexure-1(series). (E) For declaring the action of the respondent illegal in appointing those persons who never applied for inclusion their name in the panel in terms of the advertisement as contained in Annexure-2 and name has been inserted with oblique motive who never applied and were appointed and also declaring the action of the respondents illegal in saying that the other persons name included due the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in different cases, all the order which they have mentioned in the order impugned has already brought on record in the present case and there is no such direction passed by the Hon'ble Court.
(3.) At the outset, Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is the third round of litigation only due to the mala-fide intention of the respondent-authorities. The petitioners moved before this Court way back in the year, 1997; which was allowed in their favor and thereafter, again in the year, 2006, they filed another writ application which was also decided in their favour, but only to frustrate the order of this court, the impugned order has been passed.;