CWP No. 1972 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1972 of 2008 Date of Decision: 8.5.2008 (i) CWP No. 1972 of 2008. Anurodh Kumar and another ......Petitioners Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents Present: Shri K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri N.S. Bawa, Advocate, for the respondents. (ii) CWP No. 2231 of 2008. Bhajan Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus Bhakra Beas Management and others ....Respondents Present: Shri M.L. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri N.S. Bawa, Advocate, for the respondents. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 1972 of 2008 and CWP No. 2231 of 2008 filed by the apprentices, who have undergone training with BBMB claiming preferential appointment other than the direct recruits. CWP No. 1972 of 2008 (2) In Civil Writ Petition 12204 of 2007 (Darshan Singh and others v. Bhakra Beas Management Board and another), we have examined the scheme giving preference to the apprentices of the BBMB. The BBMB has exempted its apprentices from the screening test, which was mandatory for the candidates, who applied in response to the public advertisement, so as to shortlist the candidates for trade test and interviews. Still further, the BBMB has framed a criteria in terms of the Regulations framed giving 5 marks to the apprentices. Minimum of 2 marks were proposed to be given to the candidates, who have undergone training for two years and for trainees who have undergone training earlier than two years, 0.25 marks for each year were required to be given. Thus the BBMB has given preference to the apprentices, who have undergone training earlier as also permitting the candidates to compete for appointment with the apprentices. The BBMB has produced the marks given to each of the candidates. The petitioners Anurodh Kumar has been given 4 marks for BBMB apprentices and has got total of 28.83 marks and ranks 31 in the merit list. The petitioner Manoj Kumar, who stands at 26 in the merit list, has got 3.75 BBMB apprentice marks and total 22.58 marks and stands first in the wait list candidates. Bhajan Singh, who ranks 43 in the merits list, has been assigned three marks for apprenticeship and total 18.17 marks, whereas the petitioner Tilak Raj got 3.25 marks for BBMB apprenticeship and total 17.17 marks and is at serial No. 47 in the merit list. The last candidate, who has been appointed in pursuance of the selection process from the general category has obtained 22.67 marks. Thus, the petitioners have been given marks for their seniority; given preference for their seniority as well as marks being BBMB apprentice. If after such preference, the petitioners are not able to make the grade for final selection, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or irregularity in the selection process. In fact, the ratio of Division CWP No. 1972 of 2008 (3) Bench judgment of this Court in Dharam Pal v. State of Punjab, 2000 (3) SCT 573 would be applicable, wherein it was was held as under:- “4. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that for appointment to the post of Lineman, a written test was held and merit list was prepared. Furthermore, such appointments were primarily given to the persons who had obtained a national apprenticeship certificate. The petitioner has no indefeasible right to the appointment as Lineman unless and until he is entitled on the basis of his merit and the written test and the criteria adopted for selection and appointment to the post of Lineman.” Consequently, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE May 8 , 2008 ds