IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14088 OF 2008 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 12, 2010 Constable Desh Raj and another .....Petitioners 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. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have filed this writ petition to impugn the action of the respondents in detailing the private respondents for B-1 Course in the list issued in the year 2008. As per the petitioners, this has been done in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Detailment in question is of 55% quota, which is required to be made on the basis of merit. The eligible candidates were called for test and interview and the result was declared on 1.5.2008. Thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened for interview where the petitioners also participated. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were more CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14088 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: meritorious but have been ignored on account of some consideration other than merit by inflating the marks given in the interview. Mr.Nehra would refute this fact and refer to the written statement filed. Alongwith the written statement, Annexure R-1 has been annexed, which is the merit list prepared on the basis of marks awarded to various candidates under different parameters, which were universally made applicable to all. Accordingly, the first five candidates appearing in the merit were selected and the petitioners could not make the grade being at Nos.6 and 8 respectively. The counsel submits that six seats were available but only five candidates were detailed on the course. This is explained by saying that one seat is reserved for scheduled caste, for which reference is made to a policy memo dated 26/27.2.2008, on the basis of which one seat was allocated to the scheduled caste candidates. I do not find any infirmity in the manner of selection, which would call for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 12, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE