IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 20582 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 23.03.2009 Seema .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate, for the petitioner. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi in Chhaju Ram Memorial Jat College, Hisar, in pursuance of an advertisement. She was not selected by the Selection Committee, whereas respondent No.6, who had also applied for the same post, was selected. Now, the petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No.6 on the ground that she was wrongly given weightage of 5 marks for sports. It is the case of the petitioner that the said weightage was granted without any base, as no Sports Certificate was annexed with the application. On December 08, 2008, counsel for the petitioner was directed to place on record some material to show that the said weightage was wrongly granted to respondent No.6, as she does not possess any Sports Certificate. Now, the petitioner has placed on record the application of CWP No. 20582 of 2008 -2- respondent No.6 as well as a Sports Certificate issued by the Haryana State Women's Hockey Association. According to the said Certificate, respondent No.6 had participated in the Haryana State Women's Hockey Championship, organized by Haryana State Women's Hockey Association held at Kurukshetra. Counsel for the petitioner states that the said Certificate is forged one and was placed on record subsequently after the interview. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is raising disputed question of fact. She has not got verified the said Certificate from the Haryana State Hockey Association as to whether the same was issued by it or not. She has not placed on record any other material, which indicates that the said Certificate is fictitious one. The mere allegation of the petitioner that the Certificate is fake cannot be accepted as a gospel truth. Again, it is disputed question of fact as to whether the said certificate was produced by respondent No.6 at the time of the interview or it was produced subsequently. These disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the instant petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. March 23, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE