IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.16803 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 09, 2010 RAHUL SHARMA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Constable with all consequential benefits. 2. It has been pleaded that advertisement (Annexure P-1) was given by the respondents. The petitioner, being fully eligible, applied for the post of Constable in general category and appeared in physical test conducted on 24.5.2010 at Polo Ground, Patiala. The petitioner qualified the physical test and was declared fit for interview. The petitioner received a letter of interview, to be conducted on 17.6.2010. The petitioner claims to have appeared for the interview with all certificates, which were verified. Civil Writ Petition No.16803 of 2010 2 It has been pleaded that the interview process came to be a formality. The petitioner, however, was not selected. 3. It has also been pleaded that for selection in Punjab Police and Punjab Armed Police, 25 marks have been provided for qualification and height criteria. 4 marks have been provided for interview and, therefore, the selection process itself is defective. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 17.9.2010, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, was asked to seek clarification, after giving a copy of the writ petition. It has been brought out by Shri Chahal that the advertisement (Annexure P-1), on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, was published on 11.9.2010 in Daily Ajit and Daily English Tribune newspapers, and applications have been invited from eligible candidates in the month of September, 2010. The eligibility criteria has been changed. The criteria to which reference has been made in the petition is totally different and the writ petition is not based on correct facts. 5. It has also been brought out that the petitioner applied and appeared for recruitment in Punjab Police department, for which recruitment proceedings were convened in March, 2010, which fact has been concealed with mala fide intentions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the face of correct and true facts, prays for withdrawal of the petition. 7. Dismissed as withdrawn. November 09, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?