CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10290 OF 2007 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: May 01, 2008 Parties Name Ajit Singh ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. C. PURI PRESENT: Mr. Sailender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondents No. 6, 10, 12, 14 and 39. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the selection of the private respondents against the posts of Male Constable (General Duty). In this writ petition, it has been mentioned that vide advertisement Annexure P-1, 3700 posts of Constable were advertised. Petitioner was one of the prospective candidates. As per admitted position, petitioner moved his application for selection, against the above said post, in the selection centre constituted for the above said purpose at Karnal. It is his grievance that in mid-way, two members of the selection board were changed and on account of that, many candidates from district Rohtak were CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10290 OF 2007 -2 selected as Constables and while doing so, undue favour has been shown to them. Further it has been said that the petitioner has faired very well in the physical efficiency test, whereas at the time of interview, he was granted only 5 marks out of 15. By alleging malafide on the part of the Selection Board, challenge has been laid to the selection of private respondents and other candidates selected as Male Constables (General Duty). In response to notice issued by us, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that at the time of selection process, the petitioner secured only 23 marks out of 35. The last candidate selected, in general category, has secured 28 marks. As such at this stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. With regard to petitioner's outstanding performance at the time of interview, it has been said that the members do not remember the questions, which were put to him. He was awarded marks as per his performance at the time of interview. Any malafide in the selection has been declined. Counsel for the parties heard. It is apparent from the records that vide advertisement Annexure P-1, 3700 posts of Male Constables (General Duty) were advertised for whole of the State of Haryana, out of which 1660 had fallen to the share of general category candidates. For the purpose of selection, 8 selection centres were created at different places. Karnal was one of those centres. At that place, the selection board was to select 475 candidates for the above said posts, out of which 213 posts were meant for general category candidates. It is not coming out from the records that the posts to be filled up at Karnal were meant only for Panipat and Karnal districts. After issuance of the corrigendum by the State of Haryana on May 18, 2006 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10290 OF 2007 -3 (P-1), a candidate from any part of the State was eligible to apply before any selection board, out of 8, carved out for the said purpose. It is an admitted fact that no selection centre was created at Rohtak. It obviously means that candidates from Rohtak district were to apply and bound to be selected in any of the 8 selection centres, created for that purpose. As per selection list, out of 213 general category candidates, only 20 belonging to district Rohtak have been selected. We are of the opinion that it does not substantiate allegation of the petitioner that a favour has been shown to the candidates from the above said district. Selection list Annexure P-2 indicates that in the selection centre at Karnal, many candidates, who belonged to Panipat, Jhajjar, U.P, and various other districts of the State of Haryana were selected. If that is so, merely because 20 candidates belonged to Rohtak district, no suspicion can be entertained with regard to the selection made. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner has secured less marks as compared to the last candidate selected. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( K. C. Puri ) May 01, 2008. Judge DKC