IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10664 of 2007 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: December 07, 2011 Jagjeet Singh …..Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.S.C. Pathela, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) In this petition petitioner has impugned the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as a Punjabi Master against the permanent physically handicapped (male) category made in response to advertisement dated 13.6.2006 (Annexure P-4). Mr.Pathela, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner obtained more marks than respondent No.4 in the selection conducted by the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board and thus deserves to be appointed as a Punjabi Master. In view of same, selection of respondent of respondent No.4 was arbitrary and unsustainable. Learned State counsel submits at the outset that in view of order passed today in connected writ petitions (CWP No.19570 of 2008, etc.) claim of the petitioner does not survive. He submits that fresh exercise conducted by Civil Writ Petition No.10664 of 2007 - 2 - the State pursuant to the directions given by this court in CWP No.20234 of 2006 has been upheld by this court and thus petitioner cannot press his claim for appointment. While referring to affidavit of Jagtar Singh Khatra, Director Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab dated 6.3.2010, he submits that in the revised merit list which was framed by the Departmental Selection Committee neither name of petitioner nor that of respondent No.4 figures. Thus, prayer for quashing of appointment of respondent No.4 is misconceived. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of order passed today in the bunch of connected petitions, no cause of action survives in this petition. It is evident that pursuant to direction given by a Division Bench of this court in CWP No.20234 of 2006, a Departmental Selection Committee was constituted which undertook fresh exercise for framing a select list. Admittedly, in the select list which was revised neither petitioner nor respondent No.4 figures in merit. Needless to observe that neither of them is thus entitled to appointment. There is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. December 07, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 2