CWP No. 21127 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21127 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 04-01-2011 Varun Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a grievance that he participated in the selection process in which 50 posts of Inspector of Police (Male) were advertised. During the currency of the selection process, the respondents conducted a fresh selection qua the posts which were advertised subsequently. The petitioner did not make the grade in the first 50 candidates who were selected but his claim is that he came within the next 20 candidates after the cut off for the 50 selected candidates. It is thus his grievance that the respondents ought to have prepared a waiting list which should have been activated qua 20 posts which were advertised during the currency of the first selection. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the averments made in the petition and am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. CWP No. 21127 of 2010(O&M) 2 The respondents have resorted to two separate advertisements to fill up the posts of Inspectors of Police. In the first advertisement, 50 posts were required to be filled up and during the process of selection they decided to advertise another 20 post. The petitioner having failed to make the grade in the selection in which he participated qua 50 posts cannot make a grievance of the fact that the respondents are not making a waiting list. Even if such a waiting list would have been prepared the petitioner would have got a right in the eventuality of some of the persons from the selected 50 candidates not joining the service. But under no circumstances, can the petitioner claim that a waiting list even if prepared, be made applicable to the selection of 20 posts of Inspectors which selection was initiated by a separate process. The grievance of the petitioner therefore is unfounded. Consequently, the petition is held to be without merit and the same is hereby dismissed. January 04, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge