CWP No.905 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.905 of 2008 Date of decision March 4, 2010 Gulshan Narang ....... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. S. N. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. D. Sharma, DAG., Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the selection and appointment of the private respondents to the posts of Junior Engineers on the ground that the fourth respondent among others, who was selected, did not have valid diploma at the time of the advertisement. The petitioner had also made the respondent Nos. 5 to 14 as parties on the ground that they did not fulfill the requisite qualification mentioned in the advertisement namely 60% for general category candidates having done three years diploma in Electrical Engineer or 55 % for Scheduled caste. The contention was that respondent Nos. 5 to 14 were all B.E. graduates who had secured only third class namely less than 50%. 2. I find that at the time when the Court issued notice of motion it had issued notice only to the fourth respondent, having regard to the contention of the petitioner questioning the fourth respondent's alleged want of the requisite qualification. Learned counsel for the CWP No.905 of 2008 2 petitioner refers to the application form submitted by the fourth respondent which showed that he had passed only matriculation and the application form did not make any mention about his passing of diploma course. After notice the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 as well as respondent No.4 have filed their independent written statements. It is contended by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 that originally the application was rejected by the Commission on the ground that the fourth respondent did not possess the requisite qualification but the candidate submitted his objection and also furnished photo copy of the diploma dated 27.5.2007 and therefore he was considered eligible. The fourth respondent has filed written statement explaining that in the application form there had been a column seeking for details of the pass marks of 10th and 12th class only. Since there was no specific column set out for filling up the qualifications regarding the diploma he had not filled it up. He has filed along with his written statement a copy of the provisional diploma certificate which was issued on 14.9.2006 and the diploma certificate which was subsequently issued on 21.3.2007. The provisional certificate shows that he has passed the diploma even prior to the last date of receipt of application form namely 20.11.2006. The department has therefore considered the fourth respondent as fully eligible and selection which has been made in my view is perfect. 3. The petitioner cannot have remedy before this Court even on his contention that the respondent Nos. 5 to 14 do not possess the necessary qualification. At the stage when the notice of motion was ordered, the Bench had restricted to a notice to the fourth respondent only. It is no doubt true that it shall not fetter this Court to issue notices to respondent Nos. 5 to 14 if the petitioner's case merits acceptance on the ground that he was placed high in the merit list to be considered for selection if any one of the respondents No.5 to 14 was disqualified. The petitioner has made out no case that he is in the waiting list, or that the CWP No.905 of 2008 3 disqualification of any person who had been selected would have meant his automatic selection. The petitioner cannot have an adjudication that some of the persons who have been selected could not to have been selected. The petitioners case, therefore requires no favourable consideration. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 4, 2010 archana