Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 3 read with s. 4 of the Show

Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 3 read with s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 clearly mandates that apart from an offence punishable under the PC Act, any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified thereunder can also be tried by a Special Judge. Sub-s. (3) of s. 4 specifies that a Special Judge, when trying any case, can also try any offence, other than an offence specified in s.3, with which the accused may, under the Cr.P.C., be charged at the same trial. In view of s. 22 of PC Act, provisions of the Cr.P.C. are to be applied to trials for offence under the PC Act, subject to certain modifications. [para 17-18] 1.2 The second supplementary charge-sheet dated 12.12.2011 was filed in the FIR No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 dated 21.10.2009. From the said second charge-sheet it is clear that the offences are alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in the course of 2G Scam Cases and, as such, they have been made accused in the 2G Scam Case. [para 21] 1.3 The co-accused of 2G Scam case charged under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can be tried only by the Special Judge. The Special Judge alone can take cognizance of the offence specified in s. 3 (1) of PC Act and conspiracy in relation thereto. A magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence as specified in s. 3 (1) of the PC Act. The petitioners are co-accused in the said 2GScam case. In this background s. 220,Cr.P.C. will apply and the petitioners though accused of different offences, i.e., u/s 420/120-B IPC, alleged to have been committed in the course of 2G Spectrum transactions, u/s 223 of Cr. P.C. they may be charged and can be tried together with the other co-accused of 2G Scam cases. 

R.D.Kaundal, learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered bythe judgment dated 28.7.2010, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & others, along w..

R.D.Kaundal, learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered bythe judgment dated 28.7.2010, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & others, along with connected matters and the judgment dated 7.5.2013, rendered by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (Civil) No.21939-22009/2011, titled as State of H.P. and others versus Som Nath and others.

It is the own case of the petitioners that there were 81 vacancies for selection to the post of AEN which had to be bifurcated in 70:30 ratio for the assessment period 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2009. On bifurcation, total vacancies of AEN came to be 57 ..

It is the own case of the petitioners that there were 81 vacancies for selection to the post of AEN which had to be bifurcated in 70:30 ratio for the assessment period 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2009. On bifurcation, total vacancies of AEN came to be 57 against 70% quota, out of which 9 posts were meant for SC, 4 for ST and 44 were unreserved. However, a revised reservation calculation were proposed as per which the post meant for SC were found to be 6, for ST 3 and unreserved were 48. It is also not in dispute that 1 SC candidate, namely, Harbhajan Singh had qualified against general standards (General category) in the panel of 2003-2005 who had been litigating with the petitioners for his empanelment in the 2003-2005 in which he was successful and was promoted in the panel of 2003-2005 causing vacancy in the panel of 2007-2009 in the General category in which respondent No.1 has been ordered to be considered by the Tribunal being the senior most. We are not convinced with the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners that on having been adjusted against the panel of 2003-2005 in the General category quota, Harbhajan Singh had carried the post in the said panel causing a reduction in the unreserved category to 47 which were otherwise 48 in number.