Civil Writ Petition No.3994 of 2007 :1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 09, 2009 Smt.Naraini Devi ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Jagat Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr.D.R.Bansal, Advocate. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. 1600 posts of female Constables in Haryana Police were advertised in the year 1995. The petitioner applied for a post and was selected. She worked from 1995 to 2000. This selection was challenged through Civil Writ Petition No.13942 of 1995 and was Civil Writ Petition No.3994 of 2007 :2 : quashed on 17.1.2001. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court and was up-held with directions to the State to ensure fresh recruitment. The petitioner thereafter participated but could not be selected. In the year 2004, posts of Lady Constables in Haryana Udyogic Police were advertised. The petitioner participated in the selection for the same and was selected. She remained in the job from year 2003 to 2005. Again there was another advertisement for enrolling 300 Lady Constables in the Haryana Police in May, 2005. The petitioner had applied for the same for District Bhiwani. She was not selected and has accordingly challenged the selection of some of the selected candidates from District Bhiwani. In all 75 posts were ear-marked for District Bhiwani, six posts out of these were meant for BC-B category. Bhiwani was the selection centre for Districts of Hisar, Jind, Faridabad, Sirsa and Bhiwani. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9 do not belong to any of the Districts, out of which the selections were to be made at Bhiwani and rather they are from Narnaul and Jhajjar Districts. The petitioner would accordingly contend that the appointment of respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9 is in violation of the advertisement. According to the counsel, they were not eligible to apply for appointment in any of the Districts for which the selection was done at Bhiwani. State has filed reply. Along with the reply, a copy of Annexure R-1 has been placed on record which is a communication dated 17.5.2006 issued by Director General of Police. The heading Civil Writ Petition No.3994 of 2007 :3 : thereof would clearly read that this is in continuation of advertisement dated 2nd and 3rd May, 2006 regarding recruitments of 3700 male Constable (GD) and 300 female Constable (GD) in Haryana Police published in the News Papers `The Tribune', `The India Express' etc. This communication is issued by way of amendment/clarification and it is notified accordingly. The distribution of the vacancies under the various categories has been accordingly made and it is clarified therein that the candidates belonging to Haryana Police can also apply at any selection centre other than notified for Districts of their residence. On this basis, respondents would justify the selection of respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that Annexure R-1 is an internal communication and was not notified and hence cannot be taken into consideration to supersede the earlier advertisement given in newspaper and widely published. Mr.Rathee, however, would say that this was a corrigendum issued to the earlier advertisement. Counsel for the petitioner would counter this by saying that no newspaper is placed on record where the corrigendum was published. Be that as it may, the requirement to be seen is whether there would be any justification in interfering in the selection of respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9 on the ground that they were not eligible to apply for their selection in Bhiwani. It may be noticed that the selection in this case published in the earlier advertisement was not district-wise separately. Number of Districts had been combined to create one place of selection, like the selection centre at Bhiwani was meant to select the candidates from Hisar, Jind, Faridabad, Sirsa and Civil Writ Petition No.3994 of 2007 :4 : Bhiwani Districts. It appears that the range wise selection was made at various centers . Even if the selection was to be done range-wise, this could not have been restricted to persons belonging to respective ranges. In allowing the candidate to apply anywhere, no law is being violated. Rather, it seems to be fair approach and chance for everyone to compete on merits. The instructions issued by the Director General of Police, who had the power in this regard, cannot, thus, be faulted on this ground. There is no allegation that the selection has not been done on the basis of merit. The petitioner is not more meritorious than those who were selected. The respondents belong to the State of Haryana. They have been considered for selection in view of the instructions, Annexure R-1. I would not see any infirmity in the method of selection, which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 09, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE