IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21939-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision: January 27, 2011 Dilraj Singh Bajwa …Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Gurinder Singh Attariwala, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 15.11.2010 (P-16) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing the Original Application No. 635-PB of 2010 filed by the applicant-petitioner and another similar O.A. No. 551-PB of 2009 filed by one Karamjeet Singh. 2. The applicant-petitioner approached the Tribunal with the grievance that despite his selection to the post of Junior Intelligence Officer, Grade-II/Motor Transport, Group-C, Non- Gazetted, Non-Ministerial, as a result of an advertisement published in the Employment News dated 23.5.2009 to 29.5.2009 (A-4), he has been denied appointment merely because he has disclosed in the Attestation/SSQ Forms that he was prosecuted in case FIR No. 1, dated 1.1.2007, under Sections 336, 506, 34 IPC and 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar, which C.W.P. No. 21939-CAT of 2010 has ended in his acquittal. In other case filed by Karamjit Singh, he was selected as Constable in the year 2008 in the Chandigarh Police. He was also prosecuted in case FIR No. 169, dated 16.12.1998, under Sections 392, 323, 325 IPC read with Section 392 IPC but was acquitted vide judgment dated 17.5.2001, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. However, the Tribunal after having relied upon various judgments including the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in para 3 of the judgment rendered in the case of Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605, rejected both the Original Applications, vide order dated 15.11.2010. 3. It has remained undisputed that the view taken by the Tribunal in its order dated 15.11.2010 has already been approved by us in CWP No. 957 of 2011, filed by aforementioned Karamjit Singh, vide our judgment dated 19.1.2011. We have also noticed a 3-Judge Bench judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish, (2006) 1 SCC 779, wherein the observations made in Sushil Kumar’s case (supra) have been approved. 4. In view of above, we find no sustainable ground to admit the instant petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed being squarely covered by our judgment dated 19.1.2011 passed in CWP No. 957 of 2011 (Karamjit Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others). (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 27, 2011 JUDGE PKapoor 2