IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19132 of 2010 Date of decision : 31.10.2011 Jyoti ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.R.N.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying that the petitioner who is in the waiting list amongst selected candidates be given appointment as the last selected candidate Ishvinder Singh bearing Roll No.00187 has not been given appointment as he did not fulfill the basic educational qualification. The case of the petitioner is that according to the advertisement, three posts were reserved for physically handicapped persons belonging to different categories. The following is the break- up of the same :- “Advertisement No.3/2008 Category No.5 of 2008 -- 6 posts of Fisheries Officer :- C.W.P.No.19132 of 2010 -2- General 01 ESM-SC 01 ESM-BC-A 01 PHC (B&L) 01 PHC(Hearing Impaired) 01 PHC (Locomotor Dis- ability or Cerebral Palsy) 01” The petitioner applied against the post reserved for PHC (B&L). She had passed Matriculation, Secondary School Examination and B.Sc. with Chemistry, Botany and Zoology from Kurukshetra University and was assessed as 30% visually impaired and 15% for suffering visual acuity (Snellen). After due consideration she was placed at No.1 in the waiting list while Ishwinder Singh was the last selected person in this category. According to the petitioner, Ishwinder Singh did not possess the essential qualification of either being B.Sc. with Zoology or Bachelor of Fishery Science as one of the subjects or its equivalent. She submitted a legal notice to the respondents to decide her claim and while doing so the respondents have submitted that no appointment has been given as yet to Ishvinder Singh as he did not fulfill the basic educational qualification because he obtained his B.Sc. degree in Life Science but any other action was to be taken against Ishvinder Singh as per the policy of the respondents. It is at this stage that the petitioner has prayed that she be given appointment. The respondents have filed their reply and have stated in their preliminary objections that the case of the last selected candidate Ishvinder Singh is still pending consideration as his matter has been C.W.P.No.19132 of 2010 -3- submitted to respondent No.2 by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission urging him to take an appropriate decision in this regard. The advice of the Education Department has also been solicited because of the eligibility condition which contemplated a degree of equivalent stature. It is pertinent to mention here that Ishvinder Singh by way of a separate writ petition bearing No.20320 of 2010 has also prayed that he be appointed by considering his educational qualification to be valid. During the pendency of both the writ petitions the respondents have taken a decision on 9.6.2011 to appoint Ishvinder Singh and after having done so the said candidate has availed of the opportunity and submitted his joining on 14.6.2007. This has rendered CWP No.20320 of 2010 as infructuous, whereas the prayer of the petitioner in the present form cannot be answered for the simple reason that said Ishvinder Singh who was the last selected candidate and who was ostensibly denied the appointment earlier on the plea that he was not qualified but his matter was under consideration having solicited information from various departments regarding equivalence of the qualification possessed by him and which answer has come in the shape of the subsequent appointment given to him and also his joining thereafter, I am of the opinion that in the absence of his being a party to the present proceedings, no adverse order can be passed against him more so when he has availed the employment opportunity and also when the decision to appoint Ishvinder Singh cannot be debated upon in the absence of any further material valid C.W.P.No.19132 of 2010 -4- to question his appointment as also in the absence of any specific challenge to the decision dated 9.6.2011. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed. This Court had also tried to show reason to the counsel for the petitioner regarding the hurdles he had to surmount to arrive at a successful challenge. However, for reasons best known to him he has persisted with his contentions which as observed earlier are bonded to the obstacles mentioned above. 31.10.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss