In the Supreme Court of India

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2010

(Arising out of the final judgment and order dated18.5.2010 in Civil Writ
Petition No. 16211 of 2009 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court at Chandigarh)

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

Sudesh Kumar Goyal

….Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others.

….Respondents

WITH
I.A. No.
(Application for Exemption from filing
Certified copy of the impugned Judgement.)

PAPER BOOK
FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE

Advocate for the Petitioner: Shailendra Bhardwaj

 In the Supreme Court of India

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2010

Sudesh Kumar Goyal

….Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others.

….Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is within limitation.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of …....

days in filing the same against order dated ……………...

and petition for Condonation of ……… days delay has

been filed.

3. There is delay of ……..days in Refiling the petition and

petition for Condonation of ……...days delay in Refiling

has been filed.

NEW DELHI

DATED: BRANCH

OFFICER
 INDEX
________________________________________________________
S. No. Particulars Page
No.
______________________________________________________
1. Office Report on limitation
A

2. Listing Proforma
A1-A3

3. Check List
A4-A5

4. Synopsis & List of Dates B-B8

5. Final Impugned Judgement dated 18.5.2010

1-88
Of High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

6. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit

89-100

7. Annexure ‘P-1’
101-105
True copy of Recruitment Notification Dt. 18.5.2007

8. Annexure ‘P-2’
106-108
True copy of the Recommendation
Dated 28/29.04.2008 made by respondent no.2

9. Annexure ‘P-3’
109-110
True copy of appointment order dated 19.05.2008

10. Annexure ‘P-4’ 111-

113
True copy of the Posting order dated 26.5.2008

11. Annexure ‘P-5’

114-115
True copy of the Select List declared on 15.07.2008

12. Annexure ‘P-6’ (Colly) 116-

131
True copy of written representations made by
Petitioner

13. Annexure ‘P-7’ 132

 True copy of RTI reply dated 25.11.2008
Received from Respondent no.2

14. Annexure ‘P-8’ 133

True copy of order dated 13.07.2009
Sent on behalf of Respondent no.2
Rejecting representations made by Petitioner

21. Annexure ‘P-9’ 134-167

True copy of CWP no. 16211 of 2009
Filed by Petitioner before Punjab & Haryana High
Court

27. I.A. no. 1 168-169

Application for Exemption
from filing certified copy of impugned judgement
Synopsis and List of Dates

On 18.05.2007, Respondent no.2, issued a

notification inviting applications for selection of 22

candidates (14 general category, 5 SC and 3 BC

category) for appointment in Haryana Superior

Judicial Services by direct recruitment under rule 6

(1) (c) of Haryana Superior Judicial Services Rules

2007. Meanwhile 5 posts arose afresh under the

direct recruit quota from Bar (4 General & 1 SC) in

Haryana Superior Judicial Services.

Petitioner participated in this recruitment process

and stood at 14th place in the Select List of general

category candidates after written examination and

Viva-Voce.
On 11.04.2008, a meeting of Hon’ble Selection/

Administrative Committee took place under the

Chairmanship of Hon’ble Chief Justice of

Respondent no.2. In this meeting, a Sub-

Committee comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S.

Khehar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. S. Grewal, Hon’ble

Mr. Justice A. K. Goel and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.

M. Kumar, was constituted to examine the issue of

filling the vacancies of Additional District &

Sessions Judges. Vide order dated 12.04.2008, this

Sub-Committee proposed that-

“Vide advertisement no. 193 Gaz./VI.F.2 dated

18.05.207, 22 vacancies (14 from general

category, 5 from Scheduled Cast category and 3

from Backward Class category) were

advertised, for appointment to Haryana

Superior Judicial Service by direct

recruitment through competitive examination

under rule 6 (1) ( c) of the Haryana Superior

Judicial Service Rules 2007. In pursuance of the

said advertisement, applications were received,

written examination and viva-voce was held. In

the meantime, 5 more vacancies (4 General

Category and 1 Scheduled Caste category) for

direct recruitment from Bar have become

available.

A separate examination and viva-voce was also

held from absorbing 5 officers in regular

vacancies who are already working as Presiding

Officers, Fast Track Courts in the State of

Haryana. A decision has already been taken

by Full Court to recommend to Govt. of Haryana

for their absorption against the available regular

vacancies by direct recruitment from Bar.

On the implementation of the instant

recommendation, 22 posts belonging to the

direct recruitment quota still remain vacant to

accommodate recruits to be selected against the

advertisement dated 18.05.2007.

All the 5 officers, who are presently working as

Presiding officers, fast Track Courts in the State

of Haryana and who have been recommended

to be absorbed against the 5 direct

recruitment vacancies according to the

decision of the Full Court, are all General

Category candidates. No Presiding officer, Fast

Track Court from any reserved category was

available. However out of the five additional

posts, one post belongs to Scheduled Caste

category. On account of non-availability of

reserved category candidate, out of Presiding

Officers, fast Track Courts it is proposed that

a recommendation be made to the Govt. of

Haryana for the absorption of 5 officers against

the four posts meant for General Category

candidates, and that, the fifth post meant for a

Scheduled Caste category candidate be also

filled up from the General category in relaxation

of rule 18 of Haryana Superior Judicial Service

Rules 2007, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Bal

Mukand Sah & Others (2000) 4 SCC 640.

Further, against the 22 vacancies of Additional

District & Sessions Judges by direct recruitment

besides the successful General category

candidates, only two candidates from the

Scheduled Caste category and one from the

Backward class category could qualify. Three

vacancies of Scheduled Castes and two of

Backward Class category could qualify. Three

vacancies of Scheduled Castes and two of

Backward Class can not therefore be filled

up. It is, therefore, proposed that a

recommendation be made to the Govt. of Haryana

 to appoint 14 qualified candidates from the

General category as originally advertised and

2 Scheduled Castes and 1 Backward Class

candidates selected out of the posts to be filled up

by reservation. Against these vacancies meant for

Scheduled Castes and two from Backward Class

which have remained unfilled, it is also

proposed that a recommendation be made to

the Govt. of Haryana to fill up the unfilled

reserved posts from out of the General

category candidates in the order of merit by

relaxation of rule 18 of Haryana Superior Judicial

Service Rules 2007, in view of the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Ors.

Vs Bal Mukand Sah & Others (2000) 4 SCC 640.”

Without declaring the complete result and without

accepting the proposal dated 12.04.2008, in its

entirety, Respondent no. 2, vide letter dated 28/29-

04-2008 recommended the names of 22 candidates

to Respondent no.1, for appointment in Haryana

Superior Judicial Services (13 general, 2 SC and 1

BC category. Names of 6 general category

candidates, next in merit, recommended for

appointment, against vacant reserve category posts

in relaxation of rule 18 of Haryana Superior Judicial

Service Rules). Name of Petitioner was also

recommended, for appointment in this list of 6

general category candidates, in relaxation of rules.

There were 22 originally notified posts. Name of 22

candidates was recommended against 22 notified

posts. Original notification was for 14 general posts

and 8 respective reserve posts. But the

recommendation dated 28/29.04.2008 was made for

13 general posts, 3 reserve posts and 6 vacant

reserve posts were recommended to be filed in

relaxation of rules, from 6 general candidates next

in order of merit. Thus, one notified general seat

stood reduced and one reserve seat stood increased.

Composition of notified vacancies got affected. It

caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner who

would have stood recommended against the 14

notified general category posts as he was holding

14th place in merit of general category candidates.

One seat out of originally notified 14 general seats

and 4 freshly created general seats were used to

accommodate and absorb the Respondent no. 3 to 7.

16 recommended candidates (13-general, 2-SC, 1-

BC) were conferred with appointment vide order

dated 19-05-2008. Judicial charge was conferred

upon them vide order dated 26-05-2008.

Complete result and Select list declared by

Respondent no.2 on 15.07.2008. Petitioner was

shown placed at 14th place in Select List.

Recommendation made by Respondent no. 2, for

appointment of 6 general candidates against vacant

reserve seats, in relaxation of rules, rejected by

Respondent no.1, vide decision dated 22.09.2008.

Petitioner sent various written representations,

addressed to Hon’ble Chief Justice and his

Companion Judges of Punjab & Haryana High Court

at Chandigarh, praying for recommendation and

appointment of his name in Haryana Superior

Judicial Service. On 20 th of July 2009, Petitioner

received a four line letter dated 13.07.2009

conveying the information that Hon’ble High Court

was pleased to reject Petitioner’s representations.

RTI applications made by Petitioner to know the

result, recruitment information and status of his

representations stands rejected. One application

was partly allowed wherein it was informed that 14

general category vacancies were notified in 2007

and 13 candidates were selected in 2008.

After waiting for long, Petitioner was constrained to

file Civil Writ Petition no. 16211 of 2009, titled as

“Sudesh Kumar Goyal Vs State of Haryana and

others” before Hon’ble High Court of Punjab &

Haryana at Chandigarh. Writ Petition was partly

allowed vide impugned order dated 18.05.2010.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order

dated 18.05.2010 passed in CWP 16211 of 2009

and other connected petitions whereby the Hon’ble

High court of Punjab and Haryana partly allowed

the writ petition and rejected the other prayers

without giving finding or discussion on all the

issues raised therein.

Rejection order dated 22.09.2008 was quashed and

Respondent no.1 was directed to reconsider the

recommendation dated 28/29.04.2008, within 6

weeks. Matter is still pending with Respondent no.1.

Hon’ble Division Bench gave a finding on page 77

para 77 that – “As against 14 out of 22 advertised

 posts vide notification dated 18.5.2007, admittedly

only 13 candidate have been appointed under the

general category and one vacancy is apparently

unfilled._ _ _ _” However Hon’ble High Court failed

to give an appropriate direction to recommend and

appoint the Petitioner on this 14 th vacant seat as

Petitioner stood on 14th place in general category in

the Select List against 14 notified general category

seats.

Further, in para 88 page 85, the Hon’ble Division

Bench noted the contention of Petitioner regarding

the provision of 10% unforeseen vacancies out of

sanctioned posts in accordance with directions

issued by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated

04.01.2007 in “Malik Mazhar Sultan and Anr. Vs

U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors.” JT 2007 (3)

SC 352. But no finding on the non-compliance of

this provision was given.

Prayer of appointment of Petitioner on seat

becoming vacant due to resignation of Sh. Jitender

Kumar Sinha turned down.

Hence this Special Leave Petition.

10.01.2007 Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules,

2007 notified.
 18.05.2007 Respondent no.2 invited applications for
selection of 22 candidates (14 general category,
5-SC category and 3-BC category) for direct
appointment in Haryana Superior Judicial Service.
True copy of this notification dated 18.5.2007 is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-1
(Pages to ).

Feb.-April 08 Written examination and Interview conducted

by Respondent no.2. Petitioner participated vide
roll no. 1309 in the same.

12.4.2008 A Sub-Committee consisting of 4 High Court

Judges proposed for making the recommendation
of names of -
14 general category candidates against 14
notified general posts,
3 reserve category candidates against 3 reserve
posts and
5 general category candidates, next in the
respective order of the merit in the Select List,
against the 5 vacant notified reserve category
posts in relaxation of rules, for their appointments
in Haryana Superior Judicial Service, to State of
Haryana.

28/29.04.08 Names of 22 candidates (13 - general, 3 -

reserve and 6 - general including that of
petitioner, in relaxation of rules against vacant
reserve seats) recommended for appointment.
True copy of recommendation dated
28/29.04.2008 is annexed herewith and marked
as Annexure P-2 (Pages to ).
 22 candidates recommended against 22
advertised posts. 14 General posts reduced to 13.
5 Reserve posts increased to 6.
Proposal dated 12.04.2008 made by a Sub-
Committee of 4 High Court Judges, not accepted
in its entirety. It caused serious prejudice to
Petitioner who was deprived of appointment being
placed on 14th place in Select List against 14
notified vacancies.

May 2008 Appointment orders dated 19.05.08 and

posting order dated 26.05.2008 issued for 16
candidates. True copy of order dated 19.05.2008
is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-
3 (Pages to ).True copy of posting orders
dated 26.05.08 is annexed herewith and marked
as Annexure P-4 (Pages to ).

15.07.2008 Complete result displayed. Petitioner stood

at 14th rank in merit. True copy of select list
declared on 15.7.08 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-5(Pages to ).

22.09.2008 Recommendation made by Hon’ble High

Court regarding filling of vacant reserve
category seats from eligible general category
candidates, in relaxation of rules, turned down
by the State.

August 2008 Petitioner sent various written

representations, praying for his appointment
in Haryana Superior Judicial Service. True copy of
these representations is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-6 colly.
(Pages to ).

Nov. 2009Petitioner moved various RTI applications. True

copy of RTI reply dated 25.11.2008 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-7. (Page
)

Dec. 2008 Petitioner moved 2 Intervening Applications

before this Court. IA no. 62 in Civil Appeal no.
1867 of 2006 was withdrawn in Jan. 2009 with
liberty to approach the Hon’ble High Court.
IA no. 2 in Writ Petition (Civil) no. 222 of 2008,
is pending.
July 2009 Petitioner received a letter dated 13.07.09 from
Respondent no. 2, conveying a non-speaking
order that his representations stands rejected.
True copy of this letter is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-7 (Pages to ).

October 2009 Civil Writ Petition no. 16211 of 2009 filed by

Petitioner, before Punjab & Haryana High
Court, claiming relieves of-
His appointment on 14th vacant notified general
post.
His appointment on post becoming vacant on
resignation of Sh. Jitender Kumar Sinha, from
service.
His appointment on including the provision of
10% unforeseen vacancies in the sanctioned
posts.
His appointment on the basis of
recommendation of his name in relaxation of
rules.
 Amendment of appointment orders dated
19.05.2008 and posting orders 26.05.2008 on
acceptance of his other prayers.
Grant of all financial benefits retrospectively.
True copy of this writ is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-8 (Pages to ).

18.05.2010 Impugned Judgement pronounced.

Despite giving a categorical finding that 14th
notified vacancy remained unfilled, no relief was
granted to the Petitioner.
Demand of appointment of Petitioner on the
seat becoming vacant due to resignation of one
candidate turned down.
No finding was given on the issue of 10%
unforeseen vacancies to be included in notified
vacancies.
Refusal order dated 22.09.2008 passed by State
of Haryana, quashed. Direction issued to do the
fresh reconsideration.

.8.2010 Hence this Petition.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(ORDER XVI RULE 4(1) (A))

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2010

(Arising out of final judgment and order dated18.5.2010 passed in Civil Writ
Petition No. 16211 of 2009 by Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh)

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

BETWEEN
POSITION OF PARTIES
In High Court In this
Court
SUDESH KUMAR GOYAL
S/o Sh. Daya Kishan Goyal
R/o A-5/79, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi-89. Petitioner
Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Haryana through its Chief Secretary,

Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh.
Respondent no.1
Respondent no.1
(Contesting
respondent)

2. Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh,

Through its Registrar General.
Respondent no.2 Respondent no.2
(Contesting
respondent)

3. Sh. Rajneesh Bansal,

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karnal, Haryana
Respondent no.3
Respondent no.3
(Non contesting
respondent)

4. Sh. Vimal Kumar,

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rewari, Haryana.
Respondent no.4
Respondent no.4 (Non
contesting respondent)

5. Sh. Sandeep Garg,

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hisar, Haryana
 Respondent no.5
Respondent no.5
(Non contesting
respondent)

6. Sh. Jasbir Singh Kundu,

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa, Haryana
Respondent no.6
Respondent no.6
(Non contesting
respondent)

7. Sh. A.K. Shori,

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kaithal, Haryana.
Respondent no.7
Respondent no.7
(Non contesting
respondent)
To
Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Judges of The Supreme Court
of India

The humble Petition of

the Petitioner above
named

Most Respectfully showeth: -

1. The Petitioner abovementioned respectfully submits

this Petition seeking Special Leave to appeal against

the impugned order and judgement dated

18.05.2010 passed by the Division Bench of Hon’ble

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in

Civil Writ Petition no. 16211 of 2009 and other

connected bunch of petitions. The Hon’ble High

Court was pleased to pass a common judgement in

as many as 12 civil writ petitions, allowed the writ

 petition partially but left untouched the remaining

prayers and the petitioner is still aggrieved.

1A. That out of the impugned order and judgement

dated 18.05.2010 the following SLP [C] No. 17463 of

2010, 17366-17371 of 2010, 17723- 17728 of 2010,

17793-17797, 21344-21394 of 2010 are being preferred

and the notices already been issued in all these cases and

now the same are fixed before this Hon’ble Court on

19.8.2010.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:

The following substantial questions of law arise

for consideration by this Hon’ble Court:

(A) Whether by not deciding all the material

questions of law and fact, the impugned

judgment has resulted in a grave miscarriage

of justice to the petitioner?

(B) Whether the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court, on its administrative side, can arbitrarily
affect any change in the recruitment notification
dated 18.05.2007 by reducing the number of
notified general category vacancies and by
changing the composition of notified vacancies,
meant exclusively for direct recruitment from Bar,
without any legal and justifiable basis? And that
 too when the recruitment proceedings were
underway and these changes going to prejudice
the rights of contesting candidates, especially the
Petitioner.

(C) Whether in the absence of any condition for

reduction or change in number of notified
selection of candidates in the recruitment
notification dated 18-05-2007 which was made for
selection of 22 candidates, any changes can be
made subsequently during the pendency of
recruitment proceedings? And especially when
there is no rule or policy in this respect and the
Service rules are silent on this aspect.

(D) Whether the reduction in number of originally

notified general category candidates to be
selected, from 14 to 13, doesnot amounts to
changing the rules of game after the game was
played. Once the recruitment process is initiated,
no changes, prejudicial to candidates, should be
made mid way. This reduction has caused serious
prejudice to the Petitioner as he was standing on
14th place in the Select List against the 14 notified
vacancies.

(E) Whether undue prejudice has been caused to

the Petitioner who despite attaining 14th position
in Select List in the category of general category
candidates, against 14 notified general vacancies,
was illegally been deprived of appointment?
Especially when the Division Bench of Hon’ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court gave a clear cut
 finding in para 77 page 77 of the impugned
judgement that one notified general category post
remained unfilled.

(F) Whether the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court, on its administrative side, was justified in
ignoring the proposal dated 12.04.2008, made by
its own duly constituted sub-committee consisting
of 4 senior Judges?

(G) Whether the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court, on its administrative side, was justified in not
incorporating the provision of 10% unforeseen
vacancies out of sanctioned posts while making
the recruitment notification dated 18.05.2007, as
promulgated by this Hon’ble Court vide
order dated 04.01.2007 in “Malik Mazhar
Sultan Etc. Vs UP Public Service Commission
Etc (Supra)?”

(H) Whether the Division Bench of Hon’ble Punjab &

Haryana High Court, was justified in rejecting the
claim of Petitioner on the seat fallen vacant due to
the resignation of Sh. Jitender Kumar Sinha?
Whether this seat does not fall in the category of
OTHERWISE as directed by this Hon’ble Court in
“Malik Mazhar Sultan Etc. Vs UP Public Service
Commission Etc (Supra)”? In ‘Malik Mazhar Sultan’
(Supra) vide order dated 04.01.2007, this
Hon’ble Court issued exhaustive directions for
judicial appointments to ensure that judicial
vacancies are timely filled. It was directed that
number of vacancies to be notified must include –
Existing and Future vacancies. Future vacancies were
described as vacancies which may arise due to
 elevation to High Court, death or otherwise, say
10% of number of posts that may arise within one
year.

(I) Whether in the absence of duly formulated

recruitment rules and policies, the Hon’ble Punjab
& Haryana High Court, on its administrative side,
was justified in making the recommendation of 5
contractual Judges, for their absorption in
Haryana Superior Judicial Service, from the quota
of direct recruits from Bar, by adopting a new
source of recruitment, by going against the
mandate of Constitution of India?

(J) Whether a direction is to be issued to

Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and State
of Haryana to suitably amend the orders dated
28/29.04.2008, 19.05.2008 and 26.05.2008 in
order to recommend and appoint the
Petitioner to the post of Additional District and
Sessions Judge in the State of Haryana;

(K) Whether grave, serious and manifest injustice and

prejudice has been caused to Petitioner when his
lawful claim made through various written
representations is not duly considered by Hon’ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court?

(L) Whether the State of Haryana and Hon’ble

Punjab & Haryana High Court needs to be
directed to recommend and appoint the Petitioner
in the cadre of Haryana Superior Judicial Service
and to grant all the benefits, for which he is
legally entitled to, including seniority, pay
 fixation, arrears of pay along with interest from
the date of appointment of other selected
candidates on the acceptance of the present
Petition? Whether Petitioner is entitled for
damages towards harassment and sufferings as
his lawful claim is being withheld by Respondent
no.1 and 2?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4 (2)

The petitioner states that no other petition

seeking leave to appeal has been filed by him

against the impugned judgment.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:

The Annexure Nos.P-1 to P-9 produced alongwith

the Special Leave Petition are true copies of the

pleadings/document, which formed part of

records of the case in the Court below against

whose order, the leave to appeal is sought for in

this petition.

5. GROUNDS

Aggrieved by the impugned Order and final

Judgment dated 18.5.2010 passed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in

C.W.P. No.16211/2009, the petitioner is filing the

 Special Leave Petition, on the following, amongst

other grounds:-

(A) That the impugned order of the Hon’ble High

Court is against the facts of the case, law and

equity.

(B) That despite giving a finding that 14 th notified

general category vacancy remained unfilled; no

direction was issued to Respondent no.1 and 2 to

fill the same from the candidate standing next in

the Select List.

(C) That after the commencement of the selection

process, Respondent no. 2, without issuing a proper
notification and without assigning any justifiable
reason, can not arbitrarily reduce or divert the
notified vacancies to accommodate and absorb
contractual candidates. Further, the composition of
notified vacancies can not be altered in any
circumstances.

(D) That seats meant for direct recruits quota from Bar

were transferred to absorb certain candidates from

the back door, without following the due procedure

of law. In the impugned judgment, a straight

forward finding is been made in para 21 on page 28

that Fast Track Judges were members of a Judicial

Service constituted under 2001 rules and there is no

 rule or statutory provision for their appointment.

Respondent no. 3 to 7 were not the members of Bar,

on the date of recommendation of their names.

These Respondents do not come in the preview of

definition of Advocate. They can not be selected and

absorbed in the regular cadre of Haryana Superior

Judicial Service, against the seats reserved for direct

recruitment general category from Bar. According to

article 233 (2) of Constitution of India, these

respondents were Judicial Officers and hence they

are barred from appointment in the quota of direct

recruitment from Bar. Further, Respondent no. 3 to

7 did not participated on equity with other general

category candidates, in the selection process,

according to rules.

(E) That the illegal transfer of 14 th notified seat to

absorb a contractual candidate has seriously

prejudiced the Applicant who stood 14th in the select

list, would have been selected, had the originally

notified seats remained intact. There is no provision

for transfer/ absorption of notified seats in the

recruitment notification dated 18-05-2007 or in

Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007. This

reduction of seats is arbitrary, unjust and hence is

bad in the eyes of law.

(F) That this Hon’ble Court vide order dated

04.01.2007 in “Malik Mazhar Sultan Etc. Vs

UP Public Service Commission Etc (Supra)” directed

that a provision of 10 % unforeseen future vacancies

be made in recruitment notifications. The

unforeseen future vacancies were categorised as the

vacancies arising due to death, retirement, elevation

to High Court and Otherwise. It is to be noted

down that directions issued in Malik Mazhar case

were issued specially keeping in view the shortage

of Judicial Officers in our country. No provision of

10% unforeseen vacancies was made or kept in the

recruitment notification dated 18.05.2007. When

Sh. Jitender Kumar Sinha resigned, another vacancy

was created. This vacancy falls under the word

OTHERWISE, as directed by this Hon’ble Court. No

other explanation to word OTHERWISE can be made

or attributed with. This vacancy needs to be filled

from the candidate next in Select List.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

kindly pass the following interim relief during the

pendency of this petition:

 (a) For that the Petitioner hopes for succeeding before
this Hon’ble Court. Petitioner has prima facie case
in his favour and the balance of convenience is also
in favour of the Petitioner. Petitioner relies on the
grounds set-forth for the grant of main relief in the
special leave petition for interim relief also.
(b) Respondent no.1 and 2 be directed to keep one seat
reserved for the Petitioner, till the final disposal of
this Petition, to avoid an ambiguous situation in
future, in the interest of justice.

7. MAIN PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Grant special leave to appeal against the final

Judgment and Order dated 18.5.2010 in Civil Writ

Petition No.16211/2009 passed by the High Court of

Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in the interest of

justice.

(b) Pass such other and further order or orders as

this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts

and circumstances of the present case and in the

interest of justice.

8. INTERIM PRAYER

In the facts and circumstances explained in the

grounds for interim relief, the petitioner most respectfully

pray that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to

grant –:

a) Respondent no.1 and 2 be directed to keep one seat

reserved for the Petitioner, till the final disposal of this

Petition, to avoid an ambiguous situation in future, in the

interest of justice.

b) Pass such further order or orders as to this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

DRAWN BY: FILED

BY:

(SHAILENDRA
BHARDWAJ)
ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER
NEW DELHI.
DRAWN ON: .8.2010
FILED ON: .8.2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.

OF 2008

IN THE MATTER OF :

Sudesh Kumar Goyal ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors. …

Respondents

CERTIFICATE

CERTIFIED that the Special Leave Petition is confined

only to the pleadings before the Court whose order is

challenged and the other documents relied upon in those

proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds

have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special

Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of

the documents/Annexures attached to the Special Leave

Petition are necessary to answer the question of law

raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in

the Special Leave Petition for consideration of this

Hon’ble Court. This certificate is given on the basis of

the instructions given by the petitioner/person

authorized by the petitioner whose affidavit is filed in

support of the Special Leave Petition.

SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ
(ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)

Place: New Delhi

Date:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.

OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF :

Sudesh Kumar Goyal ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors. …

Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sudesh Kumar Goyal s/o Sh. Daya Kishan Goyal r/o A-

5/79, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi-89, aged 44 years, do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the petitioner in the above said case and

am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of

the case, hence competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That I have read the accompanying Special Leave

Petition containing Pages __ to __ Paragraph __ to

__, Ground __ to __ and List of Dates and Facts __ to

__ and Interlocutory Application(s) and understood

the contents thereof. The facts stated therein are

true and correct to the record of the case, which I

believe to be true. The legal submissions are verified

as true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

3 That the Annexures filed herewith are true copies of

their respective originals.

4. That no other special leave petition has been filed by

the deponent earlier against the final Judgment and

Order dated 18.5.2010 in Civil Writ Petition

No.16211/2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab &

Haryana at Chandigarh.
5. That the contents of the above affidavit are true to my

knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material

has been concealed therein.

Verified at New Delhi on this the __ day of August, 2010

that the contents of para 1 to 5 of my above affidavit are

true and correct. No part of it is false and nothing

material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 I.A. NO._________OF 2010

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO………… OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sudesh Kumar Goyal …

Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & Others …

Respondents

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

CERTIFIED COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
18.5.2010

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

And his companion Justices of the

Supreme Court of India.

The humble petition of the Petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That this is a petition under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India for special leave to appeal against the

final Judgment and Order dated 18.5.2010 in Civil Writ

Petition No.16211/2009 passed by the High Court of

Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

2. That the petitioner has applied the certified copy of the

impugned order dated 18.5.2010 in C.W.P. No. 16211 of

2009 and the same will take time therefore, the same is

not readily available with the petitioner. However, the

petitioner undertakes to file the same as and when the

same will be available with the petitioner. That the non

filing of the impugned order is neither intentional nor

deliberate but due to the above mentioned reason.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(a) Exempt the petitioner from filing certified copy of the

impugned order dated 18.5.2010 passed by the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P.

No. 16211 of 2008; and

(b) Pass such other further order or orders as may be

deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the

case.

DRAWN BY: FILED BY:

NEW DELHI,
FILED ON: .8.2010