IMPORTANT POINT
Leave to appeal is declined as writ petition was rightly decided by High Court and no prima facie case was made out about its incorrectness.

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-In these petitions, orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the Letter Patent Appeals affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge are under challenge. The petitioner filed writ petitions claiming them to have been filed in the public interest questioning the validity, legality and propriety of selection made by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) and appointments made pursuant to the selection by the State Government to the post of District Food and Supplies Controller relating to respondent, No. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000 and respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions mainly on two grounds - (1) the petitioner not being one of the contestants for the post of District Food and Supplies Controller and that the writ petition had been filed only to gain political advantage as he was Member of Legislative Assembly in 1967, hence he had no locus standi to file the writ petition; (2) the selected candidates were appointed to the post of District food and Supplies Controller in the year 1981 i.e. nearly 16 years prior to filing of the writ petitions. There was no stay of appointment of the selected candidates and they have been continuing in service and further they had earned two promotions in 1985 and 1989. If the petitioner was really aggrieved, he should have made representation to the Department that the selected candidates i.e. the respondents were not qualified for the post.

3. On appeal, the Division Bench although did not find any justification to condone the delay of 386 days, yet considered the appeals on merits. The Division Bench noticed that out of the 16 candidates, who were called for interview, the HPSC selected respondent No. 4 Achint Ram Godara, the petitioner himself was not one of the candidates for the post and none of the candidates who had not been selected, challenged his appointment; that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No.4 had earned two promotions in the year 1985 and 1989 and even the review application filed by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was also dismissed on 8.8.1997; respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P No. 10512/2000 were similarly placed; the Division Bench did not find any good ground to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and concurring with the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, Letter Patent Appeals also were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in these petitions.

4. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000 submitted that the High Court went wrong in holding that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the writ petition. He urged that the appointment secured on the basis of the forged and bogus certificate of experience ought to have been annulled particularly when the Director General, State Vigilance Bureau had found that the experience certificate produced by the respondent No. 4 was bogus; at any rate, the minimum that could have been done was to direct some authority at least to hold enquiry as to the bogus and forged certificates.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000 while adopting the submissions made by Shri P.P. Rao, reiterated the submissions made before the High Court.

6. In opposition, Mr. M.S. Ganesh, the learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 4, 8 and 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000, Mr. A. Sharan, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 6 and the learned counsel representing other respondents made submissions supporting the impugned orders.

7. Mr. M.S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel submitted that on earlier occasion, a candidate whose claim for recruitment to the same post was overlooked for want of experience as Executive Officer had approached the High Court unsuccessfully. When the matter was brought to this Court in Mohinder Singh vs. State of