IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 2273 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 5, 2009 NAIB KHAN ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. AS Cheema, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Director, Physical Education (for short 'D.P.E.') in the category of Backward Class (Male). It has been pleaded that 4000 posts of school teachers were advertised in different subjects. Out of the said posts, 450 posts were for Civil Writ Petition No. 2273 of 2009 2 D.P.E. Out of 450 posts of D.P.E., 22 posts were reserved for Backward Class (Male) category. The petitioner applied in the said category. On 26.9.2008, the result was declared. Only 20 names have been shown in the select list. The name of the petitioner has been mentioned at Serial No.2 in the waiting list. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since 22 posts were advertised and the petitioner has been found to be eligible, his name ought to have been reflected in the merit list. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, while referring to the reply filed by way of affidavit of Shri Niranjan Singh, District Education Officer (S.E.)-cum-Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee (Teaching), states that the last selected candidate has secured 63.916 merit marks. The petitioner has secured 63.526 marks. The list had to be revised and the revised list has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. Persons shown at Serial Nos.5 and 9; namely, Sukhdeep Singh and Navdeep Singh, respectively, had been ignored earlier but have, now, been included. The petitioner has been shown at Serial No.2 in the waiting list. I have considered the issue. It is not in dispute that the appointment letter has not been issued to the petitioner. Replication has not been filed so as to controvert the averments made in the written statement in regard to the comparative merit. A perusal of select list (Annexure R-1) indicates that, in fact, the petitioner is lower in merit and has been shown at Serial No.2 in waiting list. Civil Writ Petition No. 2273 of 2009 3 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has no right to be appointed, considering his lower merit. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed, however, with a direction to the respondents that, in case, 2 vacancies fall vacant, the waiting list, as reflected in Annexure R-1, shall be first exhausted, as per rules. November 5, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?