CWP No.13382 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13382 of 2001 Date of decision : 13-08-2010 Vandana Saini and others .... Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Himanshu Raj, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that the selection of respondent No.4 to the post of Lady Constable Railway Police by Superintendent of Railway Police, Ambala Cantt. be set aside as the claim of the petitioners was better than that of respondent No.4. On 8.2.2001, five posts of female Constables were advertised for recruitment in Government Railway Police, Haryana. Those were reserved as under:- “1. General 1 2. B.C.A. 1 3. B.C.B. 1 4. S.C.A. 1 5. S.C.B. 1” CWP No.13382 of 2001 -2- The petitioners belonged to Saini Community, which had been declared as other Backward Class, and were entitled to appointment in Backward Class -B. Respondent No.4, who was selected, belonged to Yadav Community, which according to petitioners, also fell under Backward Class – B. However, Counsel for the State submits that respondent No.4 – Kavita, the selected candidate, belonged to the Gujjar Community and had obtained the highest marks in B.C.B. block category. It is not disputed that petitioners and the selected candidate belonged to same category of Backward Class category. Case of the official respondent is that selected candidate respondent No.4 obtained highest marks in Physical efficiency tests. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that appointment of respondent No.4 be set aside as she was not found fit in the physical tests of high jump, long jump, short put and running whereas the petitioners had performed better in these physical tests. This contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted as the high jump, long jump, short put and running were to assess the physical capability of the candidate and it was not the sole criteria of selection. Even otherwise, after nine years, selection of respondent No.4 cannot be set aside on the grounds as projected and noticed above. Dismissed. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 13-08-2010 JUDGE manju