LPA No. 998 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 998 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 17, 2009 Rakesh Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of his writ petition by learned Single Judge. Grievance in the writ petition was against his non- selection and non-appointment to the post of constable. 3. Case set out in the petition was that 1940 temporary posts of Constables were advertised on 5.10.2007 and selection process was conducted at various Centres. The claim of the appellant was at Jhajjar Centre against 285 posts, out of which 6 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste Ex-servicemen. He was placed at No. 7 in the inter-se merit list, as revealed in information under the Right to Information Act. The grievance of the appellant is that he should have been placed at No. 6 as one of the candidates, namely, Vijay Pal had already filed an affidavit dated 18.3.2008 LPA No. 998 of 2009 2 that he had opted for Bhiwani Centre. However, inspite of this, his name was placed in the merit list of Jhajjar Centre, resulting in exclusion of appellant. List of selected candidates was prepared in September, 2008 on which date there was no justification for including name of Vijay Pal in the merit list at Jhajjar. If this has not been done, name of the appellant would have been included in the list of those candidates who were selected. 4. The case of the appellant was opposed by filing written statement, stating that there was no provision for waiting list and, thus, he could not be treated to have been selected. This defence was accepted by the learned Single Judge. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. We find that the contention of the appellant that Vijay Pal had already opted for Bhiwani Selection Centre and effect thereof has not been considered by any authority and this requires consideration. We, therefore, direct respondent No. 6 to consider the claim of the appellant in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order within one month from date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 17, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE