IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.7458 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.2.2011 Saurabh Arya ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kohal Dev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with a grievance that he applied under the category of Backward Caste candidate but was not considered for the post of Project Officer in the Renewable Energy Department. As per the advertisement, 11 posts of Project Officers were advertised out of which 2 belonged to the Backward Caste category. The petitioner belonging to the said category applied through proper channel, but his case was not considered. Making grievance out of it he has filed the instant writ petition and upon notice of motion having been issued the respondents have filed the reply. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission has stated in its reply C.W.P.No.7458 of 2010 -2- that when the application of the petitioner was considered the experience certificate, which the petitioner has attached as Annexure P-3, was undated and it was not clear as to whether the same was attached with the application form or not and his application was rejected by the Commission on 19.12.2008 on account of his not possessing the requisite experience in the relevant field. Vide said letter the petitioner was also apprised that in case he wishes to say anything in support of his claim he should personally contact the Commission along with all the relevant documents upto 8.1.2009 and that no correspondence would be entertained in this regard subsequent thereto. The petitioner did not respond to this at all. He filed this writ petition only when the appointments were made and when he came to know that one post of BC category candidate is lying vacant. An information was got under the Right to Information Act from which it becomes clear that the experience certificate which the Commission had stated was not available with the form was actually there with the form which was sent through proper channel. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus contends that in view of this fact that the experience certificate was already attached to the application form as is evident from the information supplied under the Right to Information Act, the stand of the Commission is falsified. He contends that in view of the fact that one post is still lying vacant under the BC category, he should be offered the employment as Project Officer. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated C.W.P.No.7458 of 2010 -3- that in view of the fact that the petitioner did not react to the rejection of his candidature at the relevant time in December, 2008, he cannot make a grievance of it at this stage. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant writ petition is misconceived. The respondent Commission had apprised the petitioner of the fact that his candidature cannot be considered because of lack of material particulars and granted an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify this situation in the event of his desiring to do so. The petitioner, however, failed to react to this and filed the writ petition much belatedly after the appointments were made. The candidature of the petitioner could have been considered only if he had rectified the deficiencies in the application form. Even if it is assumed that the information given by the Commission to the petitioner was incorrect and that they were in possession of the experience certificate, yet in view of the fact that the petitioner was asked by the Commission to meet them in order to rectify the deficiencies, and upon failure of the petitioner to do so, I am of the opinion that at this stage when the selection process is over, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered to reopen the entire selection. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 16.2.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss