CWP No. 22330 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22330 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 15, 2010 Rao Brinderjit Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab etc. ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner and to appoint the petitioner on the post of Teaching Fellow in Male General category. Further prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing appointment of respondent no. 6 i.e. Sandeep Singh. 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner applied for the post of Teaching Fellow in General Category as per advertisement issued in 2007, placed on record as Annexure P-1. The petitioner got 54.165 merit marks. The petitioner was not selected as he was low in merit and was shown at Sr. No. 247 in the merit list for District Tarn Taran. It appears that 5 seats were left vacant. Persons including the petitioner were called for CWP No. 22330 of 2010 2 counseling. 3. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is aggrieved because Sandeep Singh has been selected against the 5th seat. Sandeep Singh had not joined the counseling process at the point in time when counseling took place in response to the advertisement and, therefore, Sandeep Singh had lost the right. 4. It is the admitted position that Sandeep Singh is higher in merit having obtained 58.64 merit marks. The petitioner was allowed to join counseling on 10.07.2010. Thus, the selection process was still open, in which petitioner and Sandeep Singh both competed. 5. Learned counsel contends that let the petition be dismissed as withdrawn to enable the petitioner to approach the respondents and in case any further seat falls vacant, the case of the petitioner be considered. 6. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 15.12.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?