LPA No. 1314 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1314 of 2010 Date of Decision 8.11.2010 Jaibir Singh -----Appellant Versus State of Haryana & others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 17.08.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. There are categorical finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that one of the selected candidates, namely, Rajvir Singh was shown at waiting list No. 7 and the merit of the appellant Jaibir Singh was lower than him. Only 6 vacancies on the post of Social Study Masters/ Mistresses were filled up from the waiting list and the petitioner being far below in the merit, could not have been given appointment. The learned Single Judge has also recorded that on account of death of one person, appointment to some one on merit could not be offered because these posts were advertised in LPA No. 1314 of 2010 -2- the year 1999 and a large number of persons in the interregnum period have become eligible for appointment. Accordingly, they would be entitled to be considered for appointment. The learned Single Judge further found that the interim direction for considering the case of the petitioner was passed in the year 2005 and a period of 4 years have gone bye. Filling the vacancies from the merit list prepared in year 2004 has been considered to be unfair. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The appeal is wholly without merit as nothing has been shown that the appellant was more meritorious than those who have been offered appointment. The selection is even otherwise old emanating from an advertisement issued more than 10 years ago. 3. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE November 8, 2010 Atul