CWP No. 17655 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17655 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: December 07, 2010 Sarabjit Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: None for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Annexure P-2 dated 28.11.2006 i.e. final merit list of eligible candidates for appointment as Math Masters from amongst male Ex-servicemen category. 2. It has been pleaded that an advertisement was given by the respondents in a daily newspaper on 21.10.2006 for appointment to various posts. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Math Master under Male Ex-serviceman category. The merit list prepared by the respondents discloses that persons lower in merit as compared to the petitioner have been selected whereas the petitioner who scored 59.11 merit marks, has been ignored. 3. It has further been pleaded that the respondents invited objections CWP No. 17655 of 2007 2 from persons who might have been higher in merit, however, their claim had been ignored. The petitioner filed objections, however, no response has been received by the petitioner. Hence, the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the petitioner has tried to conceal material facts in so much as the petitioner competed in Ex-servicemen Male category. Under proviso to Rule 4 of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules 1982 (for short 'The Rules'), it has been provided that where Ex-serviceman is not available for recruitment against a reserved vacancy, such a vacancy shall be reserved to be filled in by recruitment of wife or one dependent child of Ex-serviceman. The petitioner is dependent of an Ex-serviceman. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that Ex- servicemen were available and, therefore, under the provisions in the Rules, they had to be given preference over and above the petitioner, de hors the higher merit of the petitioner. Learned counsel has clarified that after exhausting all the Ex-servicemen available, dependents of Ex-servicemen were considered for appointment. While the petitioner scored 59.11 merit marks, the persons who were dependents of Ex-servicemen and have been selected and appointed have a higher merit marks viz. 64.82 and 65.594. 6. Replication has not been filed. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner has nowhere made a reference to the Rules, which have been reproduced in para no. 2 of the preliminary objections in the written statement. The petitioner further has not made any reference to the selection of Ex-servicemen in the context of the Rules. 8. Challenge in the petition is to the selection and appointment of CWP No. 17655 of 2007 3 respondents no. 4 to 8 who are all Ex-servicemen. The petitioner is dependent of an Ex-serviceman and, therefore, in the context of the Rules, the petitioner cannot claim comparative merit as compared to the private respondents. 9. From the pleadings in the written statement, I find that under the Rules, Ex-servicemen were to be given preference over dependents of Ex- servicemen. In the case in hand, Ex-servicemen were available and, therefore, I find the action of the respondents to be in accordance with the provisions in the Rules. So far as dependents of Ex-servicemen are concerned, none has been impleaded as a respondent. As per the fact situation, as has been clarified in the written statement, the dependents of Ex-servicemen selected have higher merit as compared to the petitioner. 10. No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 11. Petition dismissed. 07.12.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?