IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 12002 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 12, 2010 Dinesh Chand and others …Petitioners Versus Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate, for Mr. R.K. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition challenges order dated 27.1.2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in TA No. 55/CH/2009. The applicant-petitioners have approached the Tribunal for their absorption against the existing vacancies of Hospital Attendants Grade-III in the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘PGIMER, Chandigarh’) on the basis that they had been working as Ward Servants through the contractor for the last 2 to 10 years. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the PGIMER, Chandigarh had advertised 46 posts of Hospital Attendant Grade-III. The applicant-petitioners had applied but they could not qualify the selection CWP No. 12002 of 2010 process consisting written examination of 80 marks and interview of 20 marks. All the applicant-petitioners were asked to appear in the written test on 17.11.2007 and they were declared qualified for interview. The appointment letters were issued on 9.4.2008 to 43 selected candidates. The Tribunal has further recorded a categorical finding that the applicant-petitioners were employees of the Contractor and not that of the PGIMER, Chandigarh. Moreover, they had failed to make the grade in the competition with others. The applicant-petitioners having participated in the selection process for the vacant posts filled by the PGIMER, Chandigarh were estopped, especially when they have not been able to point out any flaw in the selection process. Moreover, none of the selected candidate was impleaded as party respondent. We are of the view that the writ petition is bereft of any merit and, thus, may not deserve to be admitted. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) July 12, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2