CWP No.5617 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.5617 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION: 06.05.2008 Pardeep Singh Chauhan .....PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr.S.C.Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr.V.S.Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is appointment of respondent No.3 to the post of Lecturer in Econometrics in the Department of Economics, Kurukshetra University Kuruksehtra. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for said post in pursuance of Advertisement No.3 of 2005 Annexure P2 inviting applications for one post of Econometric vide advertisement dated CWP No.5617 of 2007 2 10.10.2005. As per the conditions of advertisement, the University has a right to short list the candidates on the basis of the criteria to be adopted by the University. In pursuance of such stipulation in the advertisement, the criteria has been framed by the University, which has been appended as Annexure P5. As per the criteria which was in existence in the year 2005, the petitioner falls in Category-1 whereas the candidate, who has been selected falls in Category-8 and, therefore, respondent No.4 could not be called for interview as the petitioner, who falls in Category-1 was available for consideration for appointment. Therefore, the participation of respondent No.3 in the selection process in fact defeats the criteria of short listing of candidates. In reply, it is pointed out that 37 candidates from General Category and 4 candidates from Schedule Category were called for interview after short listing whereas 24 candidates appeared for interview including petitioner and respondent No.3. The Selection Committee recommended 4 candidates for appointment to the post. The name of petitioner was not amongst the said 4 candidates. Therefore, the petitioner, who has participated in the selection process is estopped to challenge the selection process. Since the petitioner is not a selected candidate, therefore, the petitioner has no right to impugn the selection process. It is also agreed that in fact respondent No.3 falls in Category-4 of the unamended criteria of short listing of candidates. The short listing criteria is framed by the University to short list the candidates for further selection process out of the large number of the candidates, who apply for appointment. There was no condition in the criteria framed or in the advertisement in respect of number of candidates CWP No.5617 of 2007 3 to be called for further selection process viz-a-viz the vacancies available. There is no stipulation in the criteria that the candidates belonging to particular category alone would be called for interview. The University is in its discretion has broad based the selection process by inviting 41 candidates for the purposes of interview. It cannot be said that the said selection process is vitiated as it is against the criteria framed. Still further, the petitioner has remained unsuccessful in the selection process. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to dispute the selection process having participated in the process. No other point is argued. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the selection process, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE ( MOHINDER PAL ) May 06, 2008 JUDGE jt