- (1.) BY Court Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant with the leave of this Court to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27th July, 2011 passed in W.P.(S) No.3483 of 2011, whereby the writ petition of the respondents was allowed on the ground that the writ petitioners were adhoc appointees and they were sought to be replaced by another adhoc appointee by impugned advertisement dated 11th June, 2011. The counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the condition prescribed in the advertisement, the appellant alone was eligible candidate, who secured 60% marks. Admittedly, the writ petitioners had not secured 60% marks which was the minimum eligibility requirement for the post. It is submitted that in earlier litigation, this issue was decided and it has been held in the said writ petition of the petitioners that they were not eligible and, therefore, writ petition was dismissed. Be that as it may, fact is that the writ petitioners are in service since 1996 and it was not a regular appointment and the petitioners, who are adhoc appointee, are sought to be replaced by another set of adhoc appointee, however by making one change of having requirement of 60% marks in the subject i.e. Humanity(Economics). The nature of appointment will remain as it is and by making this modification , what is sought to be done by advertisement is to replace the person who has been appointed in terms of the earlier selection process wherein the requirement of marks were less and now have been sought to be replaced by another adhoc appointee. Such practice are found to be wrong and illegal, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, delivered in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Piara Singh & Ors.( AIR 1992 SC 2130).
(3.) WE do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.;