IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1940 of 1992 Date of Decision: October 24, 2009 Beant Kaur & Another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - None for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to select the petitioners as Art & Craft Teachers in view of their higher merit. It has been pleaded that a requisition was sent to the Employment Office for forwarding the name of the candidates for the post of Art & Craft Teacher in District Bathinda. CWP No.1940 of 1992 [2] Names of the petitioners were also included by the Employment Exchange as the petitioners possessed the requisite qualification as per requisition sent by the authorities. The petitioners were issued Roll Numbers and were directed to appear for interview on 23.11.1990. Subsequently, the petitioners came to know that they have not been selected by the Departmental Selection Committee. Essentially the issue raised in the petition is that selection would be made strictly in accordance with merit and no marks whatsoever have been kept for interview. All the candidates were informed that they were required to appear before the Selection Committee in order to collect their certificates. The petitioners alongwith others appeared before the Selection Committee. Certificates of the candidates were returned by the Committee without proper interview. No questions were put to the candidates. In just one hour, more than 80 candidates were called by the Committee and certificates were returned. It has been specifically pleaded that the petitioners have higher marks than the person selected. Representations were made and allegation of discrimination was also made. The CWP No.1940 of 1992 [3] issue however has been evaded by the respondents. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, it has been pointed out that no marks were kept for interview. The criteria laid down by the Departmental Selection Committee was to take into consideration the academic qualifications, professional qualifications, co-curricular activities in rural areas and games etc. It has been asserted that selections have been made on the basis of merit of the candidates. The petitioners did not come to the required level and therefore, were not selected. In regard to merit of the petitioners vis-a-vis the private respondent (No.4), Annexure R-1 has been placed on record. Petitioner No.1, Beant Kaur got 36.33 marks; petitioner No.2, Sukhwinder Kaur got 36.76 marks whereas respondent No.4 has been awarded 37.12 marks. Annexure R-1 therefore makes it evident that respondent No.4 was higher in merit and therefore, the respondents would be justified in selecting the said respondent. No replication has been filed to controvert the factual position. No material has been placed on record to indicate that discriminatory attitude had been adopted towards CWP No.1940 of 1992 [4] the petitioners. Considering the contents of Annexure R-1, no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) October 24, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?