IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.22691 of 2011 Date of Decision:07.12.2011 Jasvir Kaur .....Petitioner Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation, Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure P.4) passed by respondent No.4 vide which claim of the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated 23.8.2011 vide which the representation filed by the petitioner in pursuance of direction issued by this Court in C.W.P. No.2106 of 2011, has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected whereas she was much more meritorious than respondent No.5 and the selection has been made on pick and choose policy. The respective merit of the candidates has not been considered in view of the direction issued by this Court in earlier petition filed by the petitioner. Heard the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned rejection order dated 23.8.2011. Admittedly, the petitioner earlier filed C.W.P. No.2106 of 2011 to challenge the appointment of respondent No.5. While dismissing the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, the following order was passed:- “The petitioner impugns the selection and appointment of respondent Nos.6 to 7 as Junior Sports Officers in the respondent- Power Corporation. The advertised qualifications leave no room to doubt that the pre-dominant criteria was the achievements of candidates in sports. Having regard to the achievements of the petitioner viz-a-viz respondent Nos.6 & 7 at different levels, it cannot be said that respondent Nos.6 & 7 have been selected arbitrarily and/or by pick and choose basis. The petitioner's plea that the advertisement was not displayed in advance of that she could not apply and compete for the advertised posts, also appears to be an after thought and in any case is a seriously disputed question of fact and is well explained in the reply dated 7/12/2010 (Annexure P-8) to the legal notice. In these circumstances, no case to interfere with selection in exercise of the writ jurisdiction is made out. The petitioner, if so advised, may submit a representation to the competent authority with a comparative table to demonstrate as to how her achievements in sports are far superior than respondent Nos.6 & 7. Suffice it to say that the nature of the championships, the standard of the participating teams, the performance of and individual prayer, consistency maintained by such a player etc. are the factors relevant to determine the inter-se merit. If any such representation is made, the competent authority shall consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.” In the earlier petition, the petition was contested on merits and the same was dismissed. However, there was no direction and only it was mentioned that the petitioner, if so advised, may submit a representation to the competent authority with a comparative merit and subsequently, the representation filed by the petitioner was also rejected. Since the earlier petition has been dismissed by passing a speaking order on the merits, no ground is made out to interfere in the case. Dismissed. December 07, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE