CWP No. 648 of 1993 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 648 of 1993 Date of Decision: 23.4.2009 Mrs. Raj Rani ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None for the petitioner. Shri A.K. Rathee, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). The petitioner has challenged the selection to the post of Assistant Draftsman, inter-alia, on the ground that the selection process was not fair as the candidates were selected in a secret manner. It is averred in the writ petition that the selection was made on the basis of an interview and in the absence of any criteria fixed. The selection of candidates in an interview lasting few minutes only, is not sustainable. In reply, it has been pointed out that the selection was made on the basis of merit by adopting a definite and pre-fixed criteria for selection of suitable candidates and marks were allocated to different heads like qualification; experience; sports and performance of the candidates in viva- voce test. It is further pointed out that only 20 marks out of 100 marks, CWP No. 648 of 1993 (2) were allocated for viva-voce test, whereas 80 marks allocated to different heads like qualification, experience, sports etc. It is further pointed out that the majority of the selected candidates by the Board are 1st Divisioner and having experience of the requisite trade ranging from 1-5 years, whereas the petitioner has experience of six months, which is much lower than the recommendees of the Board. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The marks allocated for interview are not excessive and the reasoning given by the Board in the reply shows that a fair criteria was adopted while making selection to the post of Assistant Draftsman. Selection was made more than 16 years ago, therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 23.4.2009 ds