Civil Writ Petition No.16209 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 23, 2009 Sushil Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner applied for post of Hindi Teacher advertised by respondent No.2. He was called for interview and had a Roll Number 32272. The petitioner was selected and placed at Sr.No.243 in general category. The petitioner is from B.C.A category. The petitioner was allocated to District Education Officer, Yamuna Nagar for appointment. When he contacted, the concerned District Education Officer in this regard, the petitioner was told that there was some mistake and the appointment would be offered after some corrections. The petitioner avers that he was not being treated as Civil Writ Petition No.16209 of 2009 : 2 : eligible. He accordingly filed two Civil Writ Petitions. In one of the petitions, he sought direction for considering him eligible in view of the law laid down by this Court. The writ petition was allowed on 22.3.2001. Subsequently, an application for review was filed by the State, pleading that the petitioner could not be appointed being lower in merit and appointment was not denied on account of his ineligibility. Review application was allowed on 23.11.2001 and the earlier order allowing the writ petition was recalled. In the written statement filed, it was stated that the petitioner had secured 30.21 marks whereas last selected candidate in the general category had secured 50.06 marks. Even the last selected candidate in B.C.A category had obtained more marks than the petitioner. The writ petition accordingly was dismissed on 3.9.2002. Nothing happens for almost six years thereafter till the petitioner moves an application on 5.3.2008 to know the criteria adopted while making appointment of Hindi Teachers. In response, he was told that the petitioner was not considered eligible. He, however, was not disclosed his merit position. The petitioner served a legal notice on 28.7.2008, asking the respondents to treat him eligible and offer him appointment. The petitioner would also make an allegation of perjury on the ground that the respondents had given a false and fabricated information to the Court while filing review application. When no response was received, the petitioner filed writ petition on 20.10.2008, which was disposed of with a direction to decide his legal notice. While rejecting his legal notice, the petitioner was informed that he was not appointed as per merits. This was in Civil Writ Petition No.16209 of 2009 : 3 : response to contempt petition filed by him. The petitioner was given liberty to challenge the order while disposing of the contempt petition and he has accordingly filed the present writ petition. The primary plea raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have conveyed different reasons for not appointing him, one of which ought to be wrong. As per the counsel, he was earlier held to be ineligible and, thus, was denied appointment whereas subsequently, it is made out that the petitioner did not come in the merit for being appointed. The submission and the approach made by the petitioner is apparently misconceived. The detailed facts as noticed would clearly show that earlier stand taken on behalf of the respondents was that the petitioner was not eligible when he filed a writ petition, which was allowed. This order was reviewed subsequently, when the respondents pointed out that the petitioner was denied appointment on account of his merit position. The order was recalled and the writ petition was ultimately dismissed. It can, thus, neither be urged nor construed that any different communication is being or was given to the petitioner. The petitioner may have been considered eligible but still was assessed. Finding him to be less meritorious, he was not appointed. While responding to legal notice, it is clearly stated that the petitioner had secured only 30.21 marks whereas last candidate appointed in the B.C.A. category had secured 49.99 marks. The reason for which the petitioner was shown to have qualified is also disclosed in the impugned order. It is stated that bio-data of one Smt.Sunil Puri, who was selected, was shown at two places, one of which was against the roll number of the petitioner. This mistake was subsequently corrected. There is, thus, Civil Writ Petition No.16209 of 2009 : 4 : no merit in the writ petition, which is even filed after seven years of the cause and that too when earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed. The present writ petition even would not be maintainable and, thus, would be misconceived. Dismissed. October 23, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE