C.W.P No.3165 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.3165 of 2011 Date of decision: 22.2.2011. Gurmail Singh .............Petitioner v State of Punjab and another ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Dr. M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his candidature for the post of Physical Training Instructor (for short “PTI”) for having higher qualifications of Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed). It is stated that the petitioner has passed his B.P.Ed three years course in the year 2000 and one year degree course of Bachelor of Physical Education Winter 2003 from the Nagpur University. Department of Education, Government of Punjab vide Advertisement No.1/ October.2006 published in “The Tribune October 21, 2006” (P.4) advertised different posts of School Teachers including 175 posts of C.W.P No.3165 of 2011 #2# PTI. Considering himself being fully qualified, the petitioner applied for the post of PTI, however, it is alleged that he has been ignored by the respondents only on the ground that he is not having the qualification of Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed). The Basic as well as Profession Qualifications for the post of PTI are reproduced as under: “(i) Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent; and (ii) Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed) of a duration of not less than two years or its equivalent.” Learned counsel argues that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Full bench dated 5.2.2010 (P.10) titled as Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and another judgment by learned Single Judge dated 27.7.2010 (P.11), case of the petitioner is squarely covered and the writ petition deserves to be allowed in the same terms. Admittedly, the advertisement was issued on 21.10.2006 and the respondents published a notice for the scrutiny of original documents (Scrutiny Phase II) of the candidates on 14.11.2006 (P.6) and it is claimed by the petitioner that he attended the scrutiny in pursuance of the said notice dated 14.11.2006. It is alleged that his documents were checked by the respondents, however, he was not considered only on the ground that he was having higher qualification of B.P.Ed and not possessing the Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed). Meaning thereby, the petitioner was aggrieved against the action of the respondents in November 2006 whereas he filed the C.W.P No.3165 of 2011 #3# present writ petition only on 21.2.2011 i.e after a period of more than four years. Although for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a mandamus, there is no prescribed period of limitation yet in the matter of selection/appointment, the writ petitioner is always expected to be vigilant while approaching the High Court within a reasonable period. Even the limitation for filing a civil suit for declaration is three years. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed solely on this ground. So far as the judgment of Full Bench (P.10) in Manjit Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the same is not helpful to the petitioner as in that case, a reference was made on a question “whether a candidate possessing higher qualification than the one prescribed and advertised for appointment to the posts is eligible for such selection/appointment?” and vide order dated 5.2.2010, the reference was answered by the Hon'ble Full Bench in the affirmative and the writ petitions were ordered to be placed before the learned Single Judge for decision on merits. Thereafter, vide order dated 27.7.2010 (P.11), the writ petition bearing CWP No.451 of 2008 in Manjit Singh's case (supra) was allowed and a speaking order dated 13.9.2007 issued by the respondents was quashed and the respondents were directed to consider the candidate of the petitioner (s) in the light of the law laid down by this Court. It is necessary to mention here that in Manjit Singh's case (supra), initially the petitioner filed CWP No.2868 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.7.2007 by this Court C.W.P No.3165 of 2011 #4# directing the respondent No.2 to consider the writ petition as a representation and take a final decision and in pursuance of the same, the speaking order dated 13.9.2007 (P.12) was passed, which was subsequently challenged by filing CWP No.451 of 2008 praying for a writ of certiorari ; but in the present case the petitioner has woken up from the deep slumber after a period of more than four years and, therefore, he cannot be equated with Manjit Singh's case (supra). Needless to say that in view of the declaration of law laid down by Hon'ble Full Bench (P.10) , the petitioner, if so advised, may apply in future in case any vacancy of PTI is/are advertised by the respondents. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed here-in-above, present writ petition is dismissed with the observations made above. 22.2.2011. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge