Civil Writ Petition No. 13451 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 13451 of 2009 Date of decision : March 08, 2011 Sumer Chand & another .....Petitioners VERSUS Haryana Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate,for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5 to 8. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The Haryana Electricity Board had invited applications for appointment of ALMs and SAs in the year 1992. It appears that some persons were selected, but the selection was set aside. Consequently, the Board had issued fresh advertisement for inviting applications for 2000 post of ALMs and SAs on 4.3.1996. The break up of the posts was as under:- “i. General 663 ii. Scheduled Caste Block 'A' 325 iii. Scheduled Caste Block 'B' 325 Civil Writ Petition No. 13451 of 2009 -2- iv. Backward Class Block 'A' 16% 427 v. Backward Class Block 'B' 11% vi. Ex-Servicemen 200 vii. Physically Handicapped 60 As per the petitioners, on the basis of written test and interview, the respondents have declared the result of 2000 selected candidates. This Court, in some of the writ petitions filed, had issued direction for appointment of at least 336 reserved candidates for the post of ALMs and 75 reserved categories candidates for the posts of SAs as per the merit list prepared at that time. This order was passed on 3.12.2008. In compliance of the aforesaid order, respondents had circulated the merit list prepared in the year 1997 to the various circles including respondent Nos.3 & 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that without inviting any application or representation, their categories were changed and accordingly, appointment has been given to respondent Nos.5 to 9, whereas the petitioners were denied the appointment despite being in the merit list. The stand in the reply is that respondent Nos.6 to 9 have not been appointed and only respondent No.5 has been appointed, who was meritorious enough. It is also stated that the list, which is being referred to as select list and merit list in fact was just a list containing the names of the persons, who had submitted their applications for the various posts. As per the respondents, the selection has been made on the basis of cut off marks fixed by the respondents and the petitioners had secured much less marks than Civil Writ Petition No. 13451 of 2009 -3- the cut off marks fixed i.e. 69 and accordingly, these appointments have been made as per the merit then determined. The counsel for the petitioners could not point out any infirmity, which would call for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. March 8, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE