2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.

The titled petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the consolidtated judgment of the High Court dated 14-1-2019, whereby separate writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, herein, have been dismissed.

2. Necessary facts for disposal of the instant petition for leave to appeal are that the petitioners, herein, filed separate writ petitions in the High Court, alleging therein, that the Education Department advertised various posts along with 03 posts of Junior General Line (Female) Teachers pertaining, to Union Council Sehnsa, District Kotli and 05 posts of Junior Science Teacheress for Constituency No.III, District Kotli. Being qualified, they also applied against the posts reserved for their respective quotas and participated in the test and interview. After conducting test and interview, the appointments were made amongst the candidates who obtained the merit positions, whereas, the petitioners, herein, were placed at serial Nos.1 and 2 of the waiting list prepared for their respective quotas. The main claim of the petitioners in the writ petitions was that the department withheld several posts with mala fide intention, at the time of advertisement dated 03.04.2017 which were subsequently advertised through advertisement dated 21.02.2018. Had the department advertised all the posts at the time of advertisement dated 03.04.2017, the petitioners would have been appointed against the posts pertaining to their respective quota. They requested for setting aside the advertisement dated 21-02-2018 with a further direction for their appointment against the withheld posts. The writ petitions were resisted by the respondents, by filing written statements, stating therein, that the petitioners are not the aggrieved persons. They participated in the test and interview and after failing to obtain the merit position they could not file the writ petitions. No post was withheld by the department at the time of advertisement dated 03.04.2017. After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court dismissed both the writ petitions through the consolidated judgment dated 14.01.2019, hence the captioned petition for leave to appeal.

3. Sahibzada Mehmood Ahmed, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is against law and the record, which is liable to be set aside. He submitted that while handing down the impugned judgment the learned High Court failed to resolve the real controversy involved in the case and dismissed the writ petitions on technical grounds. He submitted that the petitioners built up their case before the High Court that the department withheld certain posts at the time of advertisement dated 03.04.2017 and if the said posts were advertised, the petitioners would have been appointed. In this regard, the petitioners also placed on record certain appointment orders made on ad-hoc basis, which is the proof of fact, that the posts were available and withheld by the department at the time of advertisement dated 03.04.2017 but the learned High Court failed to consider the same and dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the merit list relied upon by the petitioner is undated and cancelled vide notification dated 29.03.2018, which has not been challenged by the petitioners, without adhering to the fact that after placing the petitioners at serial Nos.1 and 2 in the waiting list, valuable rights had accrued to them in the light of the policy notification dated 01.03.2017, which cannot be affected even after the cancellation of the merit list. Even otherwise, through notification dated 29.03.2018 the merit list has not been cancelled, rather the selection process of the primary teachers on the basis of waiting list after the issuance of the advertisement dated 21.02.2018 has been cancelled and the waiting list prepared in the light of NTS, conducted in 2017 was kept intact, as visualized from the notification dated 29.03.2018. The learned counsel submitted that the notification dated 29.03.2018 was issued during the pendency of the writ petitions just to create hurdles in the judicial proceedings, which was liable to be set aside by the learned High Court itself for doing the complete justice. In this regard he placed reliance upon the case reported as [2015 SCR 860]. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners challenged the advertisement dated 21.02.2018 which was issued against the policy notification dated 01.03.2017, which is still intact and has not been cancelled by the authority. The learned High Court has also not considered this aspect of the case. He requested for grant of leave to appeal.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sajid Hussain Abbasi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the caveator-respondents while controverting the arguments of the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is perfectly legal, which is not open for interference by this Court. He submitted that the petitioners built up their case before the High Court on the basis of waiting list, prepared in pursuance of the NTS conducted in 2017, which was cancelled by the Government vide notification dated 29.03.2018. The petitioners have not challenged the said notification, thus the matter has attained finality and the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief. The argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the waiting list prepared in the light of NTS conducted in year 2017 is still intact, is misconceived as the language employed in the notification dated 29.03.2018 is very much clear through which the waiting list prepared in pursuance of the NTS conducted in 2017 has been cancelled. He submitted that no post was withheld by the department at the time of advertisement dated 03.04.2017 against which the petitioners could be appointed. The petitioners have failed to point out any legal question involved in the petition for leave to appeal, the same merits dismissal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the impugned judgment along with the other material made available. Admittedly, the petitioners herein, built up their case before the High Court while relying upon the waiting list wherein, they were placed at serial Nos.1 and

2. The. learned High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the waiting list on which the petitioners have based their claim, has been cancelled by the Government vide notification dated 29.03.2018 during the pendency of the writ petitions and the petitioners have not challenged the said notification. The claim of the petitioners is that through notification dated 29.03.2018, the waiting list prepared in pursuance of the NTS conducted in year 2017 has not been cancelled and the same is still intact. For convenience the notification dated 29.03.2018 is reproduced as under:- From the perusal of the notification reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that the Government has cancelled the waiting list prepared in pursuance of the NTS conducted in year 2017 along with the advertisement of the posts for NTS 2018. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the waiting list prepared in pursuance of the NTS 2017 is still intact is misconceived. While filing the writ petitions the petitioners based their claim on the waiting list, which has been cancelled through the notification reproduced hereinabove, therefore, it was enjoined upon the petitioners to challenge the same. As the petitioners have failed to do so, therefore, the learned High Court has committed no illegality while dismissing the writ petitions in view of the principle of law laid down by the superior Courts.

6. As regard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the policy notification the merits list/waiting list remains valid for 365 days and valuable rights had accrued to the petitioners, is concerned, the learned High Court in the impugned judgment has reproduced the notification dated 07.08.2017, through which an amendment has been made and the words/figures "365" has been substituted with the figures "six months". In view of the said notification the waiting list is valid for six months and the petitioners have to file the writ petitions within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned High Court is perfectly legal. The petitioners have failed to point out any legal question involved in the petition for leave to appeal, which is pre-requisite for grant of leave. Leave cannot be granted in every case only to create false hope in the mind of the litigant.

7. Before parting with the order, here it may be observed that while dictating the order, I have come across the proposition that before the High Court two writ petitions arisen out of different causes of action were filed by the different parties and having-involved common questions of law and facts the same were clubbed together and disposed of through a consolidated judgment. Under law, as the causes of action in both the writ petitions, were different and the parties were also different so two petitions for leave to appeal have to be preferred before this Court, whereas a single petition for leave to appeal by the different parties having different causes of action has been filed, therefore, on this score too, this petition for leave to appeal was not maintainable. The result of the above discussion is that finding no force this petition for leave to appeal along with the application for interim relief is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. ZC/72/SC(AJ&K) Appeal refused.