LPA No.1983 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1983 of 2011 Date of decision: December 06, 2011. Renu Dahiya ... Appellant v. State of Haryana and others ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Shri Ravi Partap Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Narender Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Hemant Gupta , J. (Oral): Challenge in the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is to an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 22nd March, 2011 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The grievance of the appellant in the writ petition was that the appellant possessed more marks in the higher examinations than the cut off marks fixed by the respondents, therefore, the appellant should been short listed for interview. In other words, the appellant sought quashing of the short listing criteria dated 22.12.2009, Annexure P-2, fixed for the posts of Clerks in the various departments. In the written statement, the respondents relied upon the contents of the advertisement No.1/2008, read with corrigendum dated 22.12.2009, whereby 3298 posts of Clerks for various departments were LPA No.1983 of 2011 -: 2 :- advertised. Reference was made to Special Instructions, which read as under:- “The prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The Commission may short list the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on basis of a rationale criterion to be adopted by the Commission. The decision of the Commission in all matters relating to acceptance or rejection of an application, eligibility/suitability of the candidates, mode of, and criteria for selection etc. will be final and binding on the candidates. No inquiry or correspondence will be entertained in this regard.” In terms of the Special Instructions, it was pleaded that the Commission had fixed a criteria for short-listing of the candidates on the basis of qualifications prescribed for the posts in accordance with the conditions of advertisement and para 6(d) of the Haryana Government notification dated 28th January, 1970. It is also pointed out that the higher qualifications have not been ignored under the criteria. The cut off points in respect of the appellant and other candidates were explained whereby the appellant has got lesser cut off marks than the other candidates. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying upon the judgment of another learned Single Judge in CWP No.3304 of 2010 (Chatarpal and another v. State of Haryana and another), decided on 24.2.2010. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon the judgment in Chatarpal's case (supra) as the challenge in the aforesaid case was restricted to the conduct of written examination and not the criteria for determining LPA No.1983 of 2011 -: 3 :- the cut off marks. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be made basis of dismissing the claim of the appellant. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, but do not find any merit in the present appeal. The Special Instructions, as reproduced above, in the advertisement, contemplate that the Commission may short list the candidates for interview by way of written examination or on the basis of a rationale criteria, to be adopted by the Commission. Though the challenge in Chaterpal's case was in respect of holding of written examinations, but in the present case, the challenge is to the criteria adopted by the Commission, in pursuance of the Special Instructions. The short listing of the candidates in the present appeal was on the line as in Chatarpal's case. The short listing criteria has been applied uniformly to all the candidates. Such criteria prescribes marks for higher qualifications, such as +2 as well as for Graduation. It is on the basis of such criteria that the appellant was given lesser cut off marks than the other candidates. We do not find any illegality in the short-listing procedure adopted by the Commission, which does not call for interference in the appeal. Dismissed. [ Hemant Gupta ] Judge [ G.S. Sandhawalia ] December 06, 2011. Judge kadyan