IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19625 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 22, 2009 Dr. Anupurna @ Anu Vashisht .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vikas Awasthy, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for filling the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer on contractual basis under National Rural Health Mission Scheme in District Mohali after considering the fact that the petitioner passed BAMS Exam in first division. CWP No.19625 of 2008 [2] The only issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner passed BAMS Exam from Guru Nanak Dev University and got 59.92% marks (594 marks out of 1000). The degree given by the University indicates that the petitioner had passed in 1st Division. In this regard, reference has been made to Annexure P-6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents have fixed the criteria whereunder a candidate who secured 60% marks in BAMS, has been given 75 marks in the selection process. Any person who secured less than 60% marks, has been given 50 marks in the selection process. I have considered the issue. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been discriminated. All the candidates have been subjected to the same criteria. Reliance of the petitioner is only on the certificate issued by the University which concludes that the petitioner got 1st Division. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, admits that the petitioner did not get 60% marks and had secured less than that. Perusal of the written statement brings out the fact that there were 66 candidates CWP No.19625 of 2008 [3] whose aggregate marks were between 59.5% to 59.98%. The action of the respondents cannot be faulted on the issue raised on behalf of the petitioner in so much as it is the admitted case that petitioner did not secure 60% marks which is the criteria adopted for assigning higher marks in selection process as compared to the candidates who secured less than 60% marks. Process of selection is different as compared to considering division by a University while issuing a certificate. Criteria adopted in the selection process is on the basis of percentage of marks and not division secured in the exam. Admittedly, the petitioner has a lower percentage of marks. Further, it being the admitted position that petitioner has not been discriminated, I do not find any reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 22, 2009 JUDGE avin