-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3567 of 2011 Date of decision: 28.11.2011 Pooja ..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate for Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate. **** Mahesh Grover, J. (Oral). The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is two fold. One is that in the advertisement dated 08.12.2010, no syllabus was prescribed by the department but in the advertisement dated 14.12.2010, it was stated that the paper will be of the post graduate level of the subject concerned and the exam was to be held on 19.12.2010. She pleads that the time granted was too short and thus, she could not prepare for the examination. The question paper was only in English language and since the petitioner belongs to Haryana where Hindi is a predominant language, She could not understand the questions. She, thus, plead that the conducting of the examination by the Haryana Public Service Commission in English has deprived her valuable rights to compete fairly. The respondents have filed the reply and have averred that they were informed of the process followed by the department and in the announcement dated 14.12.2010, it was specifically mentioned that the paper will be of the post -2- graduate level of the subject concerned and thus everything has been stated in the announcement regarding the level which has been accepted by an incumbent, who has studied upto post graduate. In so far as the second grievance is concerned, they have stated that a valid notification has been issued by the State to say that the examination would be conducted in English and the petitioner can not make any grievance of the same for the reason that Section 3 of the Haryana Official Language Act permits them to do so. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is without any merit. An incumbent, who desires employment can not make a grievance of the fact that the time prescribed for the preparation of examination was too short. The condition is applicable to all and therefore, has been uniformly applied and more than 2000 people participated. The petitioner thus can neither plead discrimination nor violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Likewise, the question of the examination having been conducted in English as per the notification issued by the State is concerned, the action has been approvingily viewed by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2011 passed in CWP No.861 of 2011 titled as Sushil Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. November 28, 2011 (MAHESH GROVER) harjeet JUDGE