AYESHA A. MALIK J.--- This single judgment decides upon the issues raised in the titled ICA as well as ICA Nos, 1653, 1646, 1668, 1716, 1717, 1647 of 2016 as common question of law and facts are involved and all the Appellants have impugned the same order dated 08.11.2016 passed in W.P. No, 7025/2009.
2. The facts of the case are that all the Appellants applied for the post of Patwari in the year 2006 and were considered alongwith other candidates for the said post. The Appellants in ICA Nos, 1593, 1653, 1646 and 1668 of 2016 were appointed on 06.02.2007. Subsequently, their services were regularized in June, 2011. In the meanwhile, the Appellants in ICA Nos, 1716, 1717 and 1647 of 2016 had challenged the appointment process before this Court through WP Nos, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2444 of 2007 on the ground that it was ma/a fide and that the merit list had been tampered with. The matter was referred to the Chairman Cabinet Committee on Recruitment vide order dated 24.09.2007, who looked into matter and upheld the recruitment process finding no irregularity in the process. It was mentioned that during this time, the Cabinet Committee scrutinized and verified each appointment and found that there was no merit in the allegations raised.
3. The Appellants in ICA Nos, 1716, 1717 and 1647 of 2016 again challenged the appointment process through WP Nos, 7025/2009 and 5111/2013 in which they prayed that the appointments be declared illegal in violation of the rules and regulations and that the Patwaris like them, who are better qualified be appointed by the Respondents. The impugned order considered the grievance of the stated Appellants and based on the statement issued by the Additional Advocate General alongwith Senior Member Board of Revenue set aside the recruitment process on the ground that there was interpolation with the merit list. The Appellants in ICA Nos, 1593, 1653 1646 and 1668 of 2016 are aggrieved by this order as they became regular employees of the Respondents since 2011 therefore, could not be terminated from service simply by scrapping the recruitment process. The Appellants in ICA Nos, 1716, 1717 and 1647 of 2016 are aggrieved by the impugned order as they were not appointed to the post of Patwari.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellants in ICA Nos, 1593, 1653, 1646 and 1668 of 2016 argued that a substantive right has been created in favour of the Appellants, who were regular employees of the Respondents and cannot be terminated from service simply by scrapping the recruitment process.
Learned counsel in the other appeals has argued that the Appellants were eligible for the appointment yet were not appointed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a great length and find that the impugned order did not consider the distinction between the Appellants in ICA Nos, 1593, 1653, 1646 and 1668 of 2016 and the Appellants in ICA Nos, 1716, 1717 and 1647 of 2016. The Appellants in ICA Nos, 1593, 1653, 1646 and 1668 of 2016 being regular employees of the Respondents could not be terminated from service merely on the basis of the statement made by the Senior Member Board of Revenue that the recruitment proces has to be scrapped. The said Appellants being regular employees of the Respondent department can only be terminated from service in accordance with law after following due process. It is noted that the recruitment process culminated into their permanent employment therefore, the recruitment process was completed and scrapping, the said process is not possible at this stage. Hence to the extent of these Appellants, the order impugned dated 08.11.2016 passed by learned Single Judge is set aside by accepting ICA Nos, 1593, 1653, 1646 and 1668 of 2016. The Respondent Senior Members. Board of Revenue shall consider them as permanent employees of the department.
6. With respect to the Appellants in ICA Nos, 1716, 1717 and 1647 of 2016 no vested right has been created in their favour simply because they have participated in the selection process. Since they were never selected nor did they come on the merit, the question of their appointment does not arise. Hence ICA Nos, 1716, 1717 and 1647 of 2016 are dismissed.