CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3801 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 06, 2009 Jai Parkash .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Advertisement for appointment to the post of Lecturer in various disciplines, including in Electronics and Communication Engineering, were issued in October 2005. The requisite qualification for the said post was B.E/B.Tech. as well as M.E/M.Tech. in Electronics and Communication Engineering in Ist Class. The petitioner, who is having B.T. as well as M.Tech. qualifications and was also having teaching experience, applied for appointment CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3801 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: against the post of Lecturer reserved for backward class category. The petitioner was called for interview. He claims that he was the only candidate in the field having degrees of B.Tech. and M.Tech. Respondent No.3 had applied for appointment for the said post in the category of ex-serviceman. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 was having only a degree of Bachelor of Engineering and, thus, the petitioner was better qualified than respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, however, has been appointed as a regular Lecturer in the Department of Electronics and Communication. Another person belonging to backward class category has been appointed on contract basis but the claim of the petitioner for appointment was rejected. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to urge that he is better qualified than respondent No.3 and if one post is to be filled, he should have been appointed instead of respondent No.3. Alternatively, the petitioner would contend that he was the only candidate in backward class category, being eligible to be appointed and accordingly he ought to have been appointed as he was meritorious and there being no competition in the category to which he had applied for being appointed. Notice of motion was issued. Written statement has been filed. There is no dispute about the selection criteria, as is referred to in the petition. It is disclosed that all the candidates, who had applied, were called for interview and their performance was assessed by the Senior Staff Selection Committee. The Selection Committee considered the case of the petitioner but did not rate him CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3801 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: suitable for appointment keeping in view his performance during the interview. The Committee rather found Mridul Chawla, respondent No.3, suitable for appointment against the post of Lecturer in Electronics and Communication Engineering reserved for ex- serviceman/dependent category. Accordingly, respondent No.3 was appointed on the basis of recommendation of the Committee on regular basis. Another person, however, has been appointed on contractual basis. Respondent No.3 has filed separate reply, disclosing that he has been appointed in the category of ex- serviceman. The petitioner had applied for in the category of Backward Class and, thus, was not a candidate to compete with respondent No.3, who had applied for appointment against the category of ex- serviceman. The qualifications of respondent No.3 are as under:- “i. B.E. (Electronics & Tele Communication), having passed it in First Class with distinction. ii. M.E. (Ist semester) examination held in December 2004. iii. M.E. (IInd Semester) examination held in May, 2005. iv.M.E. (IIIrd. Semester) examination held in Dec., 2005, thereby passing the M.E examination in June 2006 in the first Division, securing more than 70% (2112 out of 3000) of total marks. v. Passed GATE (Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering 2004) Examination held in February 2004, with a score of 90.62% (percentile). vi. Worked as a full time Lecturer in Electronics and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3801 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: Communication, for about 3 years from 22.8.2001 to 30.8.2004 in the N.C.College of Engineering, Israna (District Panipat), Haryana.” Respondent No.3, thus, appears to be highly qualified having sufficient experience. On the basis of this qualification and his performance in the interview, respondent No.3 was appointed. The question to be seen is whether the petitioner can ask his case to be compared with a person who had applied for appointment in a different category. In the advertisement, the post of Lecturers were reserved separately for backward class category as well as ex- serviceman category. The petitioner was not the applicant against the post reserved for ex-serviceman category. The petitioner otherwise was called for interview, considered and assessed. The positive stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was not considered suitable though may be qualified. On the other hand, respondent No.3, after interview, was considered suitable for appointment by the Staff Selection Committee. There is no allegation of any malafide either against the Committee or any of its Member. It would not be fair to compare the merit of the petitioner with that of respondent No.3, who both were candidates in a different category and were to compete in different categories with those who had applied in these categories. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted, then the reservation would be rendered meaningless. Otherwise also, respondent No.3 is well qualified and was found suitable for appointment by Selection Committee. There being no allegation of any bias or malafide, no infirmity is noticed in selection made. The petitioner otherwise has no right of appointment, when none in his CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3801 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: category is appointed. The petitioner had only right of consideration. The petitioner has been duly considered and not found suitable. No case for interference in writ jurisdiction, thus, is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. July 06,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE