C.W.P. No.5608 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.5608 of 2008
Date of decision : 18.11.2009
Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Hooda
....Petitioner through
Mr.Madan Pal,
Advocate
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents No.1 and 3
through Ms.Kirti Singh,
A.A.G. Haryana
Respondent No.2 through
Mr.Sardevinder Singh,
Advocate
Respondents No.4 and 5
through Mr.Ravinder
Malik, Advocate
Respondent No.6 through
Mr.K.K.Saini, Advocate
Respondent No.7 through
Mr.Atul Kaushik,
Advocate
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
…
MAHESH GROVER, J.(Oral)
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner invoking
C.W.P. No.5608 of 2008 -2-
the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the impugned action vide which the petitioner
had been denied the appointment for the post of Field Inspector
(Store) in Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing
Federation Limited.
The State of Haryana had advertised some posts vide
Advertisement No.3/2007 which were published on 22.3.2007
indicating that the last date for applying for the posts mentioned
therein was 23.4.2007. The petitioner, who was a desirous candidate
for being considered against category No.5 i.e. Field Inspector (Store)
under the general category applied for the same being eligible in all
respects. He was called for the interview vide letter dated 10.9.2007
and he appeared for the same on 27.9.2007. The interview was
conducted by the committee constituted by the Haryana Staff
Selection Commission. The result for various posts was declared on
7.11.2007 and the same was also published in vernacular newspapers.
The candidate who was last selected for the post had secured 45.88
marks as per the information set out in the notice board and other
papers. Since the petitioner was not satisfied he applied for some
information about his marks and a letter was issued to him indicating
that he has obtained 47.25 marks out of a total of 75. The petitioner,
therefore, gathered a legitimate impression that he having secured
47.25 marks was higher in merit than the candidate last selected who
had obtained 45.88 marks. He then requested the respondents to grant
him the appointment as he was higher in merit. The respondents,
C.W.P. No.5608 of 2008 -3-
however, did not respond to the request of the petitioner which
forced him to come to this court with the aforesaid grievance.
Written statement was filed and record was also
submitted.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 submitted
that as per the original record it transpired that the petitioner had
obtained 43.25 marks and that the intimation regarding having
obtained 47.25 marks was erroneously sent to him.
The court has perused the record which has been
produced in a sealed cover before it and on perusal of the same it
transpires that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is incorrect. The petitioner having Roll No.00427 had secured 43.25
marks while the person who was last selected had 45.88 marks. Thus
there seems to be no ambiguity in the record as it does not show any
traces of tampering or interpolation. The record has also been shown
to the learned counsel for the petitioner who is satisfied with the
same.
In this view of the matter, the apprehension of the
petitioner that there was some bungling in the selection process, is
apparently misplaced. Since whole of his grievance which was based
purely on aforesaid submissions is belied by the record, there is no
reason to grant the prayer which has been made in the petition. The
petition is, therefore, dismissed being without any merit leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
C.W.P. No.5608 of 2008 -4-
The record which has been submitted to this court has
been returned to the counsel for respondents No.1 and 3.
18.11.2009 (MAHESH GROVER)
JUDGE
dss