CWP No. 6491 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6491 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 30, 2009 Dharamvir Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.Arun Walia,Advocate for Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not calling him for the interview for the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer. The essential qualification prescribed for the said post was as follows:- i) Graduate in Engineering in First Division in Civil/Mechanical/Chemical/Environmental Engineering. CWP No. 6491 of 2006 2 Preferentia : Experienced candidate will be given preference. ii) Adequate knowledge of Hindi. The petitioner did not have the said qualification. He urged that he had passed the AMIE examination which was equivalent to degree and the said association did not categorize the results into divisions. At one stage the petitioner had placed on record mark sheets to show that he had secured 259 marks out of 400 in Section -A and 462 marks out of 800 in Section -B and that if the marks were totalled and computed it would be seen that the petitioner had more than 60% marks and consequently the petition was allowed. Thereafter on a review petition field by the Haryana Public Service Commission the order was recalled because the Commission had placed on record a communication from the AMIE to the effect that inadvertently it had been communicated to the petitioner that he had obtained 259 marks whereas actually he had obtained 239 marks. It was further averred that the marks obtained in Section B were not be taken and, the marks obtained by the petitioner in Section-A revealed that he did not have first division. Today when the matter came up for final arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert that in fact the petitioner had obtained 239 marks which do not amount to 60%. Consequently it is held that the petitioner did not fulfil the essential qualification mentioned above and thus his candidature was rightly rejected. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 30, 2009 sunita