CWP No. 6956 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6956 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: August 17, 2010 Sukhchain Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Devinder Kumar Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the petitioner for the post of Headmaster on the basis of higher merit obtained by the petitioner. 2. It has been contended that advertisements were published on 21.10.2006 and 27.10.2006 in various newspapers by Secretary, Punjab Government, Education Department inviting applications for the post of Headmasters/Headmistresses through C-DAC. The petitioner applied online as per the format prescribed for the post of Headmaster under BC (Ex-Servicemen) category. There were 8 posts in the said category. The certificates showing the petitioner belonging to the said category have been CWP No. 6956 of 2009 2 appended with the petition. 3. The other pleadings and documents appended are not required to be referred to in view of the reduced scope of controversy. While learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that he applied in BC (Ex-Servicemen) category, the respondents by way of filing the written statement have taken a categoric stand that the petitioner applied in Ex-Servicemen category. The respondents have appended with the written statement Annexure R-1 i.e. the application form filled by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has filed a replication again asserting that the petitioner applied in the category of Ex-servicemen/OBC. Alongwith the replication, Annexure P-2/A has been filed which, purportedly is the form filled by the petitioner (online). In the category column, Ex- Servicemen/OBC has been filled. 5. I have considered the controversy. 6. Perusal of Annexure R-1 clearly indicates that category filled by the petitioner is Ex-Servicemen. Rather an official has made a note on the side “not applied in BC Exsm category”. The form placed on record viz. Annexure R-1 indicates that it is a photocopy of the document and signatures of the petitioner are seen. Considering the contents of the form, the petitioner has been considered in Ex-Servicemen category. It is the case of the respondents that the merit of the petitioner is lower in Ex-Servicemen category and, therefore, he has not been selected . 7. In the form on which the petitioner relies viz. Annexure P-2/A, although in category column, Ex-Servicemen/OBC has been written, however, it neither has the date nor the signatures of the petitioner. 8. Be that as it may, while dealing with the matter in writ CWP No. 6956 of 2009 3 jurisdiction, I find that disputed questions of facts have been raised, which can only be resolved by way of taking evidence. 9. The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take alternative remedy including by way of filing a civil suit. 17.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?