C.W.P. No.11552 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11552 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 27, 2009 Baljit Singh .....PETITIONER Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S. Puri, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 exparte. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the appointment of Jagdish Singh (respondent No.3) on the post of Mason, Grade-II (Construction Department) with a further direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner on the said post. The petitioner had applied for the post of Mason Grade-II (Construction Department) in Guru Nanak Dev University in pursuance of advertisement No.3/2007 (Annexure P1). By the said advertisement, one post of Mason, Grade-II within Construction Department on contractual basis for three years for a fixed pay of Rs.5000/- per month, was advertised by the respondent-University. The petitioner was found duly eligible for the C.W.P. No.11552 of 2008 -2- said post and vide letter dated 31.1.2008 he was called to appear on 5.2.2008 for practical test. The petitioner appeared for the said test and cleared the same. Thereafter, vide letter dated 29.2.2008, which was sent to the petitioner on the address given by him in his Application Form, he was called for interview which was to be held on 4.3.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that he received the said letter on 5.3.2008, therefore, he could not appear for the said interview, which was to be held on 4.3.2008. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent-authorities deliberately sent the interview letter late to the petitioner with intention to deprive him of his right for selection to the aforesaid post. Pursuant to the notice issued, a written statement has been filed by respondents No.1 and 2 in which it has been stated the respondents dispatched the call letters for interview, which was to be held on 4.3.2008, to all the three candidates, who had cleared the practical test, simultaneously on the same day, i.e., 29.2.2008 by Speed Post. The allegation that the respondents sent the call letters for interview late with mala fide intention, was totally denied. It is stated that there is no reason for alleging any discrimination or mala fide on the part of the answering respondents. It has been further stated that the call letter of the petitioner was dispatched by Speed Post on the address provided by the petitioner himself in the Application Form. It has been further stated that village Sanoure is a very prominent and big village neighbouring Patiala. It has been further stated that the petitioner has not annexed any proof regarding the date of receipt of the call letter. The petitioner filed replication to the written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 2. In the replication, it has been stated that full C.W.P. No.11552 of 2008 -3- address of the petitioner, which was mentioned in the Application Form, was not mentioned in the call letter sent to him. It is to be mentioned that with the replication also the petitioner did not annex any proof, evidence or document showing that he had received the call letter on 5.3.2008, except mere averments made by him in the writ petition. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case. Undisputedly, all the three candidates, who had cleared the Practical Test for the above-said post, were sent the call letters simultaneously on 29.2.2008 for interview to be held on 4.3.2008, by Speed Post on the addresses given by the candidates in their Application Forms. The call letter for interview was also sent to the petitioner by the respondents on 29.2.2008 on the address given by him in his Application Form along with his Mobile number. It is the case of the petitioner that he received the said letter on 5.3.2008, but neither along with his petition nor along his replication, the petitioner has annexed any cogent evidence, proof or documents showing that he had received the said letter on 5.3.2008. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents No.1 and 2 have not denied this factum, cannot be accepted. In the written statement, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner be put to strict proof regarding date of receipt of call letter as nothing is discernible from the documents attached with the writ petition. While filing the replication, the petitioner again did not annex the proof for receipt of the said letter on 5.3.2008. In my opinion, the petitioner could have easily produced the Certificate from the Postal authorities about the date of delivery of the said letter. However, the same has not been produced by the petitioner. Furthermore, it cannot be said that in the facts and circumstances of the C.W.P. No.11552 of 2008 -4- case, the respondents deliberately dispatched the call letter for interview late. In my opinion, the call letters dispatched simultaneously to all the three candidates by Speed Post, including the petitioner, on 29.2.2008 for attending the interview on 4.3.2008, cannot be said to be dispatched late, particularly when all the three candidates were the residents of the State of Punjab. In the normal course, a Speed Post, which is a Government of India undertaking under the Department of Posts, takes just one day to reach from Amritsar to Patiala. It is not the case of the petitioner that the call letters for interview were sent by respondents No.1 and 2 by ordinary post. Rather, the same were sent by Speed Post through government agency. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the instant case the call letters for interview were dispatched deliberately in a short time. Thus the appointment of respondent No.3 on the post of Mason can not be quashed on the aforesaid ground. A Division Bench judgment in Meenakshi Singla v. State of Punjab and others, 1993(1) SLR 609, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable. In that case, the person was not called for interview, though he was found eligible, but another candidate, who was less qualified, was selected and appointed. The instant case is entirely different case where the candidate himself did not appear for the interview, though the call letter for interview was dispatched to him well within the time. Thus, in my opinion, the said decision, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not applicable to this case. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. March 27, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE