CWP No.7502 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 28.04.2010 Raj Kapoor and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. SN Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners. PERMOD KOHLI, J. The petitioner applied for the post of PTI in response to the advertisement No.6 of 2006 whereby as many as 1983 posts of PTI were advertised. The qualification prescribed for the post is indicated in the advertisement which is as follows:- “4. That for the post of PTI the requisite qualification is as under: i) Matric from Haryana School Education Board or an equivalent qualification recognized by the the Haryana School Education Board. ii) Certificate in Physical Education conducted by the Haryana Education Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department. iii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric standard.” The petitioners have not been selected. The grievance of the petitioners is that candidates with higher qualification than the prescribed have been selected, which is contrary to the advertisement notice. This CWP No.7502 of 2010 2 controversy has been considered and decided by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (CWP No.451 of 2008 and other connected matters) decided on 05.02.2010, wherein the following observations have been made:- “From the facts on record and dictum of above noticed judgments, it emerges that the candidate possessing higher qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from consideration for selection. It is a different matter that he/she may not be entitled to any additional weightage for higher qualification, but cannot be denied consideration at par with a candidate possessing minimum prescribed qualification. Denying consideration to a candidate having better and higher qualification in the same line and discipline would definitely result in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” The controversy being settled by a Full Bench judgment of this Court, present petition deserves to be dismissed. I order accordingly. No costs. 28.04.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO