C.W.P No. 6373 of 2009(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.8477 of 2009 and C.W.P No. 6373 of 2009 Date of decision : May 14, 2009 Dr. V.S. Rathee, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor Medical Surgery. The allegation primarily is that the petitioner was given no marks in the interview but it was just recorded that he had been found unsuitable. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not open to a selection committee to refuse to award marks to any candidate on this C.W.P No. 6373 of 2009(O&M) ::2:: ground. Further allegation is that the petitioner belongs to Rohtak and has been agitating for the rights of physically handicapped persons for the last ten years. Additionally, counsel for the petitioner has argued that the members of the selection committee were inimical towards the petitioner as he never approached the `Powers-that-be' for getting any favour and that this is the reason why he has been marked as unsuitable in the interview. As regards the first contention of counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion there is no hard and fast rule which shows that a competent selection committee has to necessarily award marks in an interview. In the present case, as against the name of the petitioner, it has been recorded as “not found suitable”. It is always open to a competent selection committee to determine the suitability of a candidate for a job during interview and this fact by itself does not render such a selection so suspect as to justify interference from Court. The reason advanced by the petitioner for this course of action is also something which is intrinsically unverifiable. There can be no objective standard or proof to show that the selection committee was inimical towards the petitioner only because he never made a request to the Chief Minister as has been alleged. Apart from this, in the reply to the legal notice, all these contentions have been specifically answered and in para 10 thereof it has been mentioned that because of the non-selection of the petitioner, the post remained vacant and that the same has been re-advertised with a stipulation that it is reserved for physically handicapped candidates. It has further been mentioned that the petitioner has applied for the said post and would be called for interview as and when it is held. In view of what has been noticed above, this writ petition is C.W.P No. 6373 of 2009(O&M) ::3:: dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 14, 2009. JUDGE `kk'