CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.807 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 20, 2010 Kuldeep Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr.Advocate, for respondent Nos.6 to 10, 13, 14 & 16. Mr. S. P. Chahar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.11, 15 and 17. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the selection of private respondents appointed as Lecturers in Computer Engineering by pleading that the selected candidates were less meritorious but were interviewed and appointed by ignoring the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.807 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: claim of the petitioner. Respondent State had advertised 21 posts of Lecturers in Computer Engineering in various Colleges alongwith some other posts in May 2007. On 14.7.2007, the respondent conducted the aptitude test, which the petitioner claims to have successfully completed. The candidates were, thus, called for interview after short listing but the petitioner was ignored. The final result was declared on 1.8.2007. The petitioner has now obtained the record of marks got by various candidates and accordingly pleads that he was entitled to be called for interview as per the criteria laid down but was not called for interview. The petitioner, thus, plead that he was deprived of his right to compete in the selection, leading to appointment of less meritorious candidates. In response to notice of motion, respondents have filed reply. The fact that the petitioner had applied for the post is admitted and so too that he had appeared for aptitude test. It is then disclosed that the candidates were short listed for the post of Lecturer by following a uniform criteria, which is disclosed in the reply. The candidates were assessed by giving them marks out of maximum 100 marks. There is no dispute between the parties that the criteria, as is disclosed in the reply was followed. The only dispute is that some of the candidates who were selected did not appear in the aptitude test but still have been appointed. The respondent State has placed on record the merit list prepared on the basis of the criteria and would submit that the candidates who did not participate in the aptitude test were still found to be meritorious on the basis of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.807 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: over all criteria as adopted and, thus, were called for interview. Candidates, four times number of posts, were short listed for interview. The submission by counsel for the petitioner that those who did not appear in the aptitude test could not have been short listed does not appear to be well founded. Once a criteria was adopted for short listing the candidates, they were to be assessed according to the over all criteria and there is no indication either in the rule or anywhere that the candidates who did not appear in the aptitude test was not eligible for being short listed. Rather, those who appeared in the aptitude test, would be at advantage compared to those who were absent as the absent candidate would loose 25 marks for the purpose of being short listed. If some of the candidates were found meritorious enough for being short listed on the basis of uniform criteria adopted despite having not obtained any mark in the aptitude test, they were eligible to be short listed. The case of such candidate can not be put worse than a person who appears and obtain a zero marks in aptitude test. Such a person could not have been ignored for being short listed if he had otherwise been assessed as meritorious on the basis of marks given as per the criteria adopted. I, thus, do not find any infirmity in the short listing of the candidates and ultimately leading to their appointment on the grounds as pleaded. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 20, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE