CWP No. 16811 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16811 of 2007 Date of decision: September 8, 2008 Rami Rani --- Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ---- Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. JS Natheri, Advocate, for Mr. LS Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Chahal, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. DS Pheruman, Advocate,for respondents No. 2 to 7. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. The petitioner prays for quashing the merit-cum-selection list ( annexure P5) for the posts of Drug Inspectors. Pursuant to advertisement dated 5-6-2007, vide which 13 posts of Drug Inspectors were advertised in the State of Punjab, the petitioner applied in the general category. Out of 13 posts, 6 were for general category whereas the remaining were reserved for different categories. Case of the petitioner is that in the tentative merit list prepared by respondent No.1, rank of the petitioner was shown as CWP No. 16811 of 2007 2 67 whereas respondent No.4 was shown at number 68. Counsel submits that despite the above position, respondent No.4was called for interview and was subsequently selected, whereas the petitioner was not called for interview and as such the selection of respondent No. 4 is liable to be quashed. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 7, it has been averred that respondent No. 4 had secured 74.01% marks but the same had been wrongly calculated by the Commission as 70.01% marks. It has been averred that the mistake was only typographic in nature and after rectification of the mistake, respondent No. 4 improved from serial no. 68 to no.15. Separate reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1, wherein it is averred that after rectification of the mistake, respondent No. 4 was interviewed and selected for the said post. After hearing counsel for the parties, we find that due to a typographic mistake the marks of respondent No. 4 were wrongly shown as 70.01% and after rectification thereof her marks were calculated as 74.01% and her rank in the merit list came to be at serial No. 15. Obviously respondent No. 4 had secured more marks than the petitioner. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed. [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge [Rajan Gupta] Judge September 8, 2008 `ask'