CWP No.4880 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.4880 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.5.2009 Mohd. Shokeen Khan ...Petitioner V E R S U S State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. O. P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) On 14.05.2009, the following order was passed:- “C.M. No.8685 of 2009 : C.M. allowed. Replication taken on record. CWP No.4880 of 2009 : The dispute in this case relates to non-receipt of call letters for interview. The defence taken is that public notice(s) were issued in various newspapers informing the candidates that in case they do not receive call letters they should contact the office of the Commission. However, there is no averment regarding issuance of call letters to all candidates who had cleared the written test. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks a short date to verify this fact. CWP No.4880 of 2009 -2- Adjourned to 25.5.2009.” Today, learned counsel for the respondents has placed before me a copy of the call letter dispatched on 23.01.2009 for the interview held on 14.02.2009. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that there is a possibility that the document presented before the Court today could have been generated at any time and that the mere production of this copy would not furnish as proof of actual dispatch. Learned Senior Counsel has further requested that the respondents should be directed to give evidence of the fact that this letter was actually dispatched. Since I feel that it is not desirable that such wholesale doubts should be cast on clerical tasks, I put it to learned senior counsel for the petitioner that I would have this aspect also investigated, provided the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the caveat that if the allegations are found to be correct and if it is found that actually the letter was not dispatched then that amount would be refunded to him and further action would be taken against the respondents for making false averments. However, learned Senior Counsel states that the amount of Rs.10,000/- is too high. I do not propose to get in a process of bargaining with learned Senior Counsel and, therefore, reject the prayer for depositing of lesser amount. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that, as a matter of fact, many of the candidates who have qualified the written test, had not appeared for the interview and, thus`, this is also an evidence of the allegation that in fact the call letters were never posted. I find myself unable to agree since there could be any reason why candidates did not appear. For instance, a particular candidate may have been selected somewhere else. CWP No.4880 of 2009 -3- Another reason could be fault on the part of postal authorities. However, the fact that there may be fault on the part of postal authorities could not render the respondents liable to hold the interview afresh. If these sort of thing is permitted, it would ultimately result in a never ending process. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that there is no reason why the earlier call letters should have reached while the subsequent one, on the same address, did not reach. In my opinion, these are questions to which there can be no answer. The only thing which this Court has to see is as to whether the respondents took reasonable care that every candidate who was successful in the written test was given an opportunity to appear in the interview. Apart from the call letter, public notices were issued in newspapers. However, if even thereafter, some candidates could not appear may be due to no fault of theirs, the blame therefor cannot be shifted to the respondent No.2. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 27, 2009 JUDGE ashish