CWP No.3674 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.3674 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: March 9, 2009 KARAMBIR SINGH S/O SH. SHRI RAM ...PETITIONER VERSUS CNETRAL ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. ANIL RATHEE, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioner aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-23) dated 7.1.2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which his application for setting aside the selection of respondents No.6 & 7 for the post of Pharmacist by the Railway Recruitment Board (for short 'RRB') was dismissed. In pursuance to the advertisement dated 4.3.2006, issued by the RRB, the petitioner applied for the post of Pharmacist. As per above mentioned advertisement, the candidates were to appear in the written examination. On 8.10.2006, the petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates appeared in the written examination which was conducted by the RRB. The petitioner and respondents No.6 & 7 were declared successful in the written exam and were asked to appear before the RRB for verification of their original certificates of educational/technical education alongwith mark-sheets. The result was declared on 17/23.02.2007, as per which CWP No.3674 of 2009 -2- respondents No.6 & 7 were declared selected. The petitioner submitted an application before the RRB mentioning therein that as the two selected candidates were not having complete documents on the date when they appeared for verification of their original certificates, therefore, their selection be set aside. The petitioner thereafter submitted numerous applications to the RRB informing them that as respondents No.6 & 7 had not produced the relevant documents at the time of its verification, therefore, their appointment be set aside. The petitioner also wrote to the Chairman, RRB and to the Public Information Officer, Northern Railways seeking information, but he did not get a satisfactory reply, hence he filed Original Application. Before the Tribunal as well as before us the only point raised by the petitioner is that as respondent No.6 did not have his Registration Certificate from the Pharmacy Council and respondent No.7 did not have Diploma Certificate, therefore, the appointment of respondents No.6 & 7 be cancelled and the petitioner be appointed to the post of Pharmacist. It was averred that the petitioner had submitted all the relevant documents in original for verification. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Annexure P-8 which is a letter written to the candidates by the RRB asking the candidates to bring the original and photostat copies of the said documents/certificates. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shows that respondent No.6 was registered with the Uttar Pradesh Pharmacy Council, Lucknow with Registration No.27877 and respondent No.7 was having a Diploma in Pharmacy from Rajasthan Pharmacy Council. Apart from the above, the documents submitted by respondents No.6 & 7 were CWP No.3674 of 2009 -3- duly verified by the respondents before issuing the appointment letters. Moreover, respondents No.6 had secured 48.67% marks and respondent No.7 obtained 42.33% marks whereas, the petitioner had obtained 42 marks. Thus, respondents No.6 & 7 were higher in merit than the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal also shows that before issuing appointment letters to respondents No.6 & 7, proper verification of all the documents recommended by the Board was done. From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that not only respondents No.6 & 7 had the requisite qualifications for the post of Pharmacist, but were also higher in merit than the petitioner. They were given appointment after verifying the requisite educational qualifications and hence we find no infirmity in the selection of respondents No.6 & 7 to the post of Pharmacist. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 9, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE CWP No.3674 of 2009 -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.3674 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: March 9, 2009 KARAMBIR SINGH S/O SH. SHRI RAM ...PETITIONER VERSUS CNETRAL ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. ANIL RATHEE, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioner has impugned the selection and appointment of respondents No.6 & 7 to the post of Pharmacist. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that after the written examination, all the candidates were to required to submit their original certificates and other educational documents before the Railway Recruitment Board (for short 'RRB') and as respondents No.6 & 7 did not submit the documents on the date of verification hence, their appointment be cancelled. A perusal of the impugned judgement shows that before offering appointment to respondents No.6 & 7, the documents and educational certificates submitted by these candidates were duly verified and only thereafter, were the appointment letters issued. Apart from the above, respondent No.6 had secured 48.67% marks and respondent No.7 obtained 42.33% marks whereas, the petitioner had obtained 42 marks. CWP No.3674 of 2009 -5- Thus, respondents No.6 & 7 were higher in merit than the petitioner. On the aforementioned facts, it is clear that respondents No.6 & 7 had the requisite qualification and also their certificates were duly verified before offering the appointment to them as Pharmacist. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 9, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE