C.W.P. No.21489 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.21489 of 2008 Date of Decision:22.12.2008 Jai Bhagwan ............... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ............Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? K.KANNAN J. **** The non-selection of the petitioner for interview for the post of Sanskrit Teacher in respect to the advertisement dated 13.09.2008 is the subject of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The impugned advertisement sets out the eligibility criteria for the post in the following terms:- “(i) Shastri/B.A. (Hon's in Sanskrit) from recognized university; (ii) L.T.C./OT in Sanskrit conducted by the Haryana Education Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department OR B.T./B.Ed with Sanskrit as teaching subject from a recognized University; Note: In case, the candidates of above qualifications are not available then B.A. with Sanskrit as an elective subject with B.A./B.Ed from a recognized University with Sanskrit as a teaching subject shall be considered. (iii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric standard.” C.W.P. No.21489 of 2008 -2- 3. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to be considered in the alternative category provide viz. if candidates in the category of Shastri/B.A. (Hon's in Sanskrit) from recognized University are not available, candidates who held a B.A. degree with Sanskrit as a compulsory subject from a recognized University could be considered. Even apart from the fact that the petitioner has not filed the requisite certificates in proof of the qualifications, it is admitted by the petitioner's counsel at the time of arguments that the petitioner does not have even the particular alternative qualification of B.A. with Sanskrit as an elective subject. By the mere fact that the petitioner had been favoured with the call letter, it could not have meant that he was eligible. We find no error in the non-consideration of the petitioner for the interview and there is no scope of issuing of mandamus as sought. 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 22, 2008 Pankaj*