CWP No.11130 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.11130 of 2007 Date of decision: 10.9.08 Vijay Bhushan and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents in keeping five posts vacant for handicapped candidates in male and female category in the result published by them on 29th September, 2006 in respect of selection to the post of PTI Teachers. The petitioners have averred that as per the advertisement, no post was reserved for handicapped candidates and in view of the fact that a separate advertisement has been issued in respect of handicapped candidates on 30th March, 2001. The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they appeared for the selection test and a number of posts are still lying vacant and they were entitled to be given appointment against the same. CWP No.11130 of 2007 2 A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated as under:- “4. That even if the selection list of the candidates belonging to the General male and General female categories is stretched by taking into account the aforementioned 11 posts i.e. 5 in General male category and 6 in General female category, the cut off merit as per the stretched list for the General male category and General female category comes to be 47.34 and 47.19 respectively and the petitioners do not fall in the extended zone of selection as the petitioner No.1 to 7 who belongs to General male category has secured 36.96, 33.57, 38.37, 35.81, 36.66, 41.93 and 37.32 marks respectively and petitioner No.8 who belong to General female category has secured 36.50 marks.” In view of the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, it is clear that the petitioners are much below in merit than the last candidate selected for the posts in question. The respective percentage of marks obtained by the petitioners has been given by the respondents in the foregoing para. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE September 10, 2008 'rajpal'