IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.56 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:19.1.2010 Rashpal Kaur -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the appellant. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition seeking quashing of selection of private respondents and seeking appointment against a reserved post. 2. Posts of Sewing Teachers were advertised vide advertisement dated 10.12.2006. The last date for making application was 19.12.2006. The appellant made an application in the category of Female S.C. Ex-serviceman Dependent. The advertisement dated 10.12.2006 LPA No.56 of 2010 (O&M) specifically provided that the applicant will have to produce original certificate. Subsequently, notice for producing the original certificate was issued but the appellant could not produce such certificate. However, an affidavit was filed that the certificate will be produced on a later date. In absence of such certificate, candidature of the appellant was not considered against which a writ petition was filed. 3. Learned Single Judge held that in view of admitted position that the original document was not produced by the cut off date, no interference was called for with not entertaining the candidature of the appellant in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhupinder Pal Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2000(2) SCT 826. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. It has not been disputed that the original certificate was not produced by the cut off date. Explanation by learned counsel for the appellant is that the said certificate was applied for after notice requiring the 2 LPA No.56 of 2010 (O&M) said document was issued on 22.12.2006 by Annexure P.6 There is, however, no explanation as to why the said certificate was not earlier applied for and possessed when such requirement was mentioned in the original advertisement dated 10.12.2006. 6. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhupinder Pal Singh (supra). 7. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 19, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3 LPA No.56 of 2010 (O&M) 4