IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11912 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 09, 2010. Sohan Lal .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Bhupinder Singh Bairagi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Karminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Karminder Singh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is an OBC candidate who applied for recruitment to the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic) advertised by the I.T.B.P. The petitioner was treated eligible; allowed to appear in the written test and having successfully qualified the same, he was called for various tests also. In fact, the petitioner was at number one amongst the C.W.P.No .11912 of 2010 2 OBC candidates and when the selection was at the its final stage, namely, the medical examination of the selected candidates, he was served with an order dated 22.5.2010 (Annexure P-7) questioning his eligibility for the advertised post. It may be noticed here that the petitioner applied on the basis of three years' diploma in Mechanical Engineering possessed by him. Whereas, as per the advertisement (Annexure P-1) a candidate was required to have three years' diploma in Auto Engineering, as one of the qualifications. On receipt of the above-stated memo dated 22.5.2010, the petitioner has submitted his self-explanatory representation to the Director General, I.T.B.P. and has also appended a comparative syllabus of both the diploma courses alongwith the said representation, a copy of which has also been placed on record of this writ petition (Annexure P-9). As no decision has been taken so far on the representation of the petitioner, he has approached this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the comparative description of the syllabus of both the Diploma Courses, I am of the considered view that though it is not desirable for this Court to take any view on the equivalence of the courses, prima-facie, the petitioners has made a case for serious consideration by the I.T.B.P. Authorities. Keeping in view his outstanding performance in the written examination and his assertion that his Diploma is in fact in Auto Engineering, the petitioner's contention needs to be evaluated by a team of Experts. C.W.P.No .11912 of 2010 3 The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to take immediate action in the light of the observations made herein-above and redress the petitioner's grievance as early as possible but not later than one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order and preferably after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Dasti. July 09, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE