CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10471 of 2009 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10471 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: December 15, 2010 Rajesh Kumar Yadav .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner had applied for the post of Pharmacist before Haryana Staff Selection Commission Panchkula on 22.12.2006. Interviews were held in July, 2007. The petitioner was given Roll No.87. The petitioner obtained 43 marks out of 75 marks. The petitioner has averred that there were 50 marks for written test and 25 marks for interview, but in the selection criteria given in Annexure P-6, marks are distributed on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in examination. The petitioner alleges that he has been under assessed. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10471 of 2009 -2 During the course of submission, counsel for the petitioner made reference to Annexure P-4 to say that 50 marks were fixed for a written test. Mr. Rathee had then pointed out to Annexure R-2/1 to urge that the marks were allocated on the basis of qualifications. Out of 50 marks, 25 marks were for interview. Mr. Rathee had also explained this by way of affidavit and had disclosed that initially information supplied to the petitioner was wrong due to some inadvertence. A clarification was issued and conveyed to the petitioner long ago of filing the writ petition, which he has not disclosed. The petitioner at that stage had made a request that marks awarded by the individual members be perused. There is no averment made in the petition in this regard. The petitioner had orally pleaded that more marks were given to him than what is shown in the result sheet. This plea is reiterated by the counsel today by saying that the petitioner in fact had obtained 19 marks whereas he was shown to have obtained 17 marks in the interview out of 25. Firstly, there is no averment made in this regard in the petition. Secondly, the information on the basis of which the petitioner claims to have been awarded 19 marks is just an oral information without much basis. This vague information cannot be relied to disbelieve official record. The result of the interview has been prepared by different members of the Committee. This was prepared in the ordinary course of business and is required to be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10471 of 2009 -3 believed unless some substantial basis is placed on record. The petitioner has not substantiated his plea with any authentic proof. It is not appropriate to go into these issues in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. December 15, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE