IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.902 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.9.2009 Dinesh Kumar and another. -----Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. The appellants are aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge quashing their selection and directing constitution of fresh Selection Committee to conduct fresh selection. 2. The appellants were appointed as Instructors in the Industrial Training Institute. The private respondents challenged their selection by pointing out irregularities in the selection process. 3. Learned Single Judge after going through the objections raised, having regard to observations in earlier order dated 8.5.2008 in C.W.P. No.16090 of 2007, held that selection was vitiated. The candidates who had secured less marks in the written examination and practical test were given higher marks during interview. Marks entered in the Merit List with pencil were erased and overwritten with the pen. There was increase and decrease of marks of different candidates. Action was initiated LPA No.902 of 2009 against the members of the Selection Committee for the irregularities. Even learned counsel for the State made a statement that the selection should be scrapped and fresh selection should be held. 4. The appellants were party to the writ petition, but did not put in appearance at the time of hearing. They filed a review petition but did not appear at the time of hearing of the review petition also. 5. Only contention now raised is that selection could not be quashed merely on the statement of counsel for the State. 6. This contention cannot be accepted. The order of learned Single Judge is not based only on the statement of counsel for the State but also on the finding that there was manipulation in award of marks. The members of Selection Committee were removed for the irregularities committed during the selection process. This finding is not shown to be erroneous. The appellants will also have a chance to participate in the fresh selection. 7. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 16, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 2