IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.15993 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 NAVDEEP SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Parneet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. 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 issue letter of appointment to the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Punjabi. 2. In brief, it has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner, being eligible, applied for the post of Lecturer in Punjabi, in response to advertisement No.1 of October, 2006 (Annexure P-8). 10 posts were reserved for male category belonging to Scheduled Castes (Ramdasia), as per reservation policy of the State of Punjab. The petitioner belongs to the said category. After completion of selection process, it has Civil Writ Petition No.15993 of 2007 2 been brought out that the petitioner secured 64.145 merit marks. The petitioner produced the original certificates for scrutiny, in response to the notice issued by the respondents, by way of publication. The petitioner was selected and the result of the selected candidates was published in Daily Ajit dated 19.11.2006, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-11. The petitioner has been placed at Serial No.9 of the Select List in the category to which the petitioner belongs. The last selected candidate secured 63.95 merit marks. It has been pleaded that appointment letter in pursuance to the select list has not been issued. Hence, the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that at the time of publishing merit list (Annexure P-11), objections were invited from persons who might be higher in merit, however, had been ignored. Objections were received and considered, whereupon the interim merit list was again considered. It transpires that the petitioner has not made it in the final select list and, therefore, the respondents are within their right not to issue the letter of appointment to the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents, to which my attention has been drawn. 5. Note 1 to Annexure P-11 reads as under:- “1. If any candidate having applied for any post in the ongoing recruitment process feels that despite his/her being eligible and having merit than the last candidate in the list pertaining to his/her category, he/she may, within three days of publication of the respective merit list, apply by sending an e-mail at recruitment@cdac.mohali.stpi.in for reverification of documents free of cost by indicating online registration Civil Writ Petition No.15993 of 2007 3 number, post applied for, and category. Reply will be sent by e-mail to the applicant within 72 hours. And if necessary, correction will be made before dispatch of appointment letters.” 6. It seems that in response to the above, objections were received whereupon the entire merit list has been reconsidered. The original record has been produced in court, which indicates that the last selected candidate got 65.233 merit marks. Shri Gurmail Singh, Senior Assistant in the office of Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab, states that 10 persons have been issued appointment letters. The last person in the category of Male Scheduled Caste (R & D) got 65.288 merit marks i.e. Devinder Singh son of Late Gian Singh, who stands at Serial No.10 in the merit list. The petitioner is far below insomuch as the petitioner got 64.14 merit marks only. 7. Since the respondents invited objections, which were filed, the merit had to be reconsidered. The final merit list indicates that the petitioner is lower in merit as compared to the last person who has been issued appointment letter. In such circumstances, I do not find that the petitioner has any right to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner, who is lower in merit than the last person selected and appointed. 8. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 20, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?