C.W.P. No. 8529 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8529 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 13, 2011 Harwinder Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Vs. State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioners contends that since the petitioners have passed their ITI apprenticeship course earlier to some of the candidates who have completed the same after the petitioners, they should be treated to be senior to those persons and should be given the benefit of their passing apprenticeship course prior to the others, who had passed after them. This contention of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted in the light of the advertisement dated 07.12.2010, wherein under clause 9, the selection process has already been specified, which reads as C.W.P. No. 8529 of 2011 2 follows:- “9. Selection Process: Selection will be made purely on merit basis. The merit will be made as per marks obtained in National Apprenticeship Certificate in Lineman trade. The percentage marks obtained shall be rounded off to the nearest 2nd decimal digit for preparing the merit. No weightage shall be given for higher qualifications.” In the light of the criteria, which has been laid down for the selection process, the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted as the merit has to be prepared as per the marks obtained in the National Apprenticeship Certificate in Lineman Trade. The person obtaining higher percentage of marks in the National Apprenticeship Certificate in Lineman Trade shall be higher in merit and, therefore, would be senior in comparison to the person, who gets lower marks in the National Apprenticeship Certificate in Lineman Trade. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners states that there can be a situation where the apprenticeship marks are similar to a person, who had completed the training of apprenticeship course prior to the others. Under those circumstances, the person, who has passed apprenticeship course prior in time, will have precedence in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State of Road Transport Corporation and another vs. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others, JT 1995 (2) SC 26. This situation would arise only at a subsequent stage after the selection and if such be the situation, the claimant, in any case, can make C.W.P. No. 8529 of 2011 3 a representation in this regard to the competent authority for the grant of necessary relief. No ground for interference is made out. Petition stands disposed of. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) May 13, 2011 JUDGE pj C.W.P. No. 8529 of 2011 4