IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 05, 2009 CWP No. 2451 of 2008 (O&M) Ravinder Kadiyan ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CWP No. 16676 of 2008 Sultan Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.D.S.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 2451 of 2008. Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr.Vijay Pal, Advocate for respondent No.5 in CWP No.2451 of 2008 and for the petitioner in CWP No. 16676 of 2008. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This order shall dispose of two Writ petitions bearing CWP No. 2451 of 2008 and 16676 of 2008. The facts are being taken from CWP CWP No. 2451 of 2008 -2- No. 2451 of 2008. The petitioner has challenged the framing of the select list with regard to appointment made to the post of Veterinary Live Stock Development Assistant for the outstanding sports category wherein Sultan Singh-respondent No.5 was selected and Yogesh-respondent No.7 was placed above the petitioner at serial No.1 in the waiting list. As far as the respondent No.7 is concerned, it is not disputed that he was provisionally interviewed on the undertaking that he would submit his sports gradation certificate within a week and that he has not submitted such certificate even till today. Thereafter, the action of the respondents in cancelling his candidature cannot be faulted. It may be mentioned here that despite being served none is present on behalf of respondent No.7, therefore, a presumption can safely be raised that the said respondent has nothing to counter these averments. As far as Sultan Singh is concerned admittedly he had won a prize in the All India Inter Agricultural University Sports Meet. When he applied for gradation certificate the Director Sports granted him B-1 gradation. Admittedly also he is not entitled to B-1 gradation because B-1 gradation can be given only in the following circumstances:- “Winners of the 1st three positions in Sr. National, Jr. National Inter state championships, Inter-Zonal championships, Federation cups, All India inter-varsity championships and National school games would be graded as B-1.” Later on when this fact came to light, the B-1 sports gradation certificate granted to the said respondent was cancelled. However, despite the lapse of adequate time and references made by him as well as letter CWP No. 2451 of 2008 -3- dated 21.3.2007 written by the District Sports Youth and Welfare Officer, Hisar to the respondent No.4, Director Sports to issue him the correct gradation certificate the same was not done. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the gradation certificate had been cancelled, therefore, the petitioner was definitely entitled to be placed above the respondent No.5 and, since the candidature of respondent No.7 had already been cancelled it would mean that the petitioner shall be entitled to job. In CWP No. 16676 of 2008 the aforesaid Sultan Singh has challenged the action of the respondents in terminating his services on the ground that the B-1certificate issued to him was cancelled. In the circumstances no fault can be found with the termination of the services of Sultan Singh at this stage. However, the interest of justice require that the respondent No.4 should reconsider the sporting achievements of the said respondent and award him the correct gradation certificate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter the respondent No.3 will re- examine the comparative merit of the petitioner and Sultan Singh and recommend the one who is more meritorious among them, within a period of further four weeks. After this exercise has been completed, respondents No. 1 and 2 would offer appointment to the meritorious candidate among the two within a further period of four weeks thereafter. With these observations these writ petitions are disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 05, 2009 sunita