Regular Second Appeal No. 3125 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3125 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.1.2009 *** Jagdish Rai & Anr. Appellants VS. State of Punjab & Anr. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Deficiency in the court fee has already been made good. Delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. After having lost concurrently before two Courts below, the plaintiff-appellants have approached this Court by way of instant regular second appeal, laying challenging to the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the paper book carefully. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration and mandatory injunction that they be inducted into service of respondent No.2 as Sevadaras and also sought issuance of necessary directions in this regard. It was their case that though eligible, they were not called for the interview and that no proper procedure was followed while making the selection to the said posts. It emerges out from the record that both the Courts below concurrently held the plaintiffs negligent in not appearing before the Interview Committee on the dates prescribed for the said purpose. It has duly been proved on record that the plaintiffs were issued roll Nos. 1445 Regular Second Appeal No. 3125 of 2008 2 and 1447. The plaintiffs were required to appear for the interview on 26.5.1998. Even the candidates who could not appear in the interview on that date, were given one more chance and a public notice was got published to that effect in the newspaper, so that they could attend the interview to be held between 17.8.1998 to 20.8.1998, which totally belies the plea of the plaintiffs of not receiving their roll numbers/ interview letters for the interview. On the basis of over-whelming evidence produced on record by the defendants, both the Courts below rightly held that proper procedure was followed while making the selection to the said posts. With regard to criteria of selection, it has rightly been held that it was within the domain of the respondents to lay down the standards for the selection of the candidates and the plaintiffs, who even did not bother to appear in the interview, have no locus-standi to say that the selection was not conducted properly. Nothing has been shown by learned counsel for the appellants to take a contrary view. No ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 30,2009 Jiten