C.W.P. No. 1285 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1285 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 19, 2009 Satpal Singh .....PETITIONER Versus The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 11 and 13 to 21. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who was one of the candidates for the posts of Firemen, has filed the instant petition challenging the selection of Foremen made by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. It is the case of the petitioner that while not awarding the marks on account of additional qualifications, i.e., +2 and B.A./B.Sc., as per the criteria laid down by the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner has been illegally ignored for selection on the said post, whereas respondents No.3 to 21, who are less meritorious, have been selected. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, in Annexure R-1, the criteria of selection worked out by the respondent- C.W.P. No. 1285 of 2007 -2- Corporation for the posts of Firemen has been given. According to Clause (b) of the said criteria, for additional educational qualifications, i.e., +2, Fireman Course from a recognized Institute and B.A./B.Sc., five marks have been allocated. Concededly, as mentioned in para 11 of the written statement, the petitioner has not been given any marks on account of additional qualifications. As per the criteria, the petitioner had secured total 63 marks. The case of the petitioner is that he is +2 and B.A. passed, but on that account he has not been given any marks. In the written statement, it has been stated that along with his Application Form, the petitioner has not annexed any certificate with regard to passing of the +2 examination. As far as B.A. examination is concerned, the certificate annexed with the Application Form does not show that he has cleared the said examination because the said certificate shows the result of the petitioner as “RL Lower”. By noticing these facts, the respondent-Corporation did not give any marks to the petitioner on account of additional qualifications. During the course of hearing, I have perused the original Result-cum-Details Marks Card of BA Part-III of the petitioner, which clearly indicates the result as “RL Lower”. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner did not submit +2 certificate with the application. Keeping in view these facts, the action of the respondent-Corporation in not adding the marks for the additional qualification, seems to be justified. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation further pointed out that in case the petitioner is given five marks for the additional qualification, even then the petitioner could not have been selected because the last selected candidate had secured 73.5 marks. On other point, as raised in this petition, a Division C.W.P. No. 1285 of 2007 -3- Bench of this Court in Ravinder Kumar v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and another, 2008(3) SCT 240 has upheld the selection while holding that the petitioner cannot be permitted to dispute the selection process of holding of written test for the post of Fireman. In view of this, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. May 19, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE