C.W.P. No. 21562 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21562 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: 01.12.2011 Kuldeep Singh and others ..........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition has been filed for quashing of advertisement dated 24.7.2011 (Annexure P-4) issued by the respondents in continuation of the earlier advertisement dated 30.3.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier also the petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 6356 of 2011, which was dismissed as having become infructuous, on the basis of statement made by counsel for the respondents. Now the fresh advertisement has been issued and still the petitioners have not been found eligible. Learned counsel further submits that the stand of the respondents is contrary to the statements made by learned counsel for the respondents in C.W.P. No. 6356 of 2011 as the petitioners do not possess the qualification, which has been mentioned in the fresh advertisement. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that advertisement has been issued without specifying the seats for reserve category quota. C.W.P. No. 21562 of 2011 (2) Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. The only ground to challenge the advertisement is that the present advertisement has been issued contrary to the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents in C.W.P. No. 6356 of 2011. As far as submission made by learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, it was simply mentioned that fresh advertisement would be issued after considering the qualification of the petitioners as earlier the contention of the petitioners was that the post of Pump Operator was advertised, whereas, the diploma in Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic was not being considered and the same has been included in the fresh advertisement and the petitioners are having only one year diploma, whereas, condition of two years diploma is there in the fresh advertisement. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioners does not carry any weight as in fresh advertisement, the same diploma has been added but the term of diploma is two years, whereas, the petitioners are having one year diploma. This is for the respondent-authorities to prescribe the requisite qualification and that cannot be challenged on the ground that the petitioners are having diploma of one year, whereas, the requirement of diploma is of two years. As far as reservation of posts is concerned, it has specifically been mentioned in the advertisement itself that the reservation would be as per reservation policy. There is no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. December 01, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE C.W.P. No. 21562 of 2011 (3)