CWP No.13230 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.13230 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: October 22, 2008 PARVEEN ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA. PRESENT: MR. R.K. ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. B.S. CHAHAL, DAG, PUNJAB. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has prayed for appointment as Physical Training Instructor in the General Male category. Learned counsel contends that the name of the petitioner figured in the select list, but he has not been given appointment. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that numerous posts are lying vacant and that the petitioner can be adjusted against any of the vacant posts. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been averred that the petitioner initially figured at S.No.212 in the merit list dated 19.11.2006 (Annexure P-8). However, the aforesaid result was got revised on account of acceptance of claims of those candidates who despite being eligible and more meritorious than the petitioner could not be selected earlier by the C-DAC, Mohali, an agency which prepared the merit for the aforesaid selection process. Learned counsel submits that after CWP No.13230 of 2007 -2- revision of the result the petitioner has secured 58.91 merit whereas the last selected candidate has secured 59.11 merit. On the basis of the above, learned counsel submits that as the petitioner's merit is below the last selected candidate hence he is not entitled to be appointed as Physical Training Instructor. Counsel for the respondents further submits that 260 posts are lying vacant which are reserved for SC, BC and other reserved categories and the petitioner cannot claim appointment against the aforementioned posts. After hearing counsel for the parties, it is clear that the petitioner has secured less merit than the last selected candidate as he has secured merit of 58.91 against 59.11 secured by the last selected candidate. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed as Physical Training Instructor. No merit. Dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE October 22, 2008 (RAJAN GUPTA) Gulati JUDGE