IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3195 of 2009 Date of decision : 11.2.2011 Ishwar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Sumeet Goyal, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 48. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has challenged the selection of Malis by pleading that he was more meritorious than the persons who have been selected. He has further pleaded that the entire selection deserves to be set aside as the process was not followed. In support of his plea he has referred to the fact that he was present on the day when the interview were to be conducted but he was shown absent. The petitioner has referred to Annexure R-1 to say that the persons who were absent were marked within their column as absent but his signatures appear against his name at Sr.No.24 and he has been wrongly shown absent. Upon notice of motion the explanation furnished by the C.W.P.No.3195 of 2009 -2- learned counsel for the State of Haryana is that although the petitioner came present on the date of interview but when the names of the candidates were being called out for the purpose of interviewing them, he did not turn up and due to this reason against his name and beyond the column where the signatures appeared it has been written “absent from interview”. The other candidates who did not turn up have merely been mentioned absent in the column where their signatures are supposed to be obtained. There seems to be justification in the stand of the respondent-State as the petitioner is the only person in whose case the words “absent from interview” has been written beyond the column meant for signatures whereas all other candidates who were absent their absence has been marked in the columns where their signatures are supposed to be obtained. The petitioner pleads that he was present and that this fact has been wrongly recorded. In this view of the matter, when the petitioner asserts a fact which is stoically disputed by the respondent-State, I am of the opinion that the writ petition cannot be answered in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India as it raises purely a disputed question of fact without casting any negative aspersions on the selection process. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 11.2.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss