IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21191 of 2008 Date of decision:16.03.2010 Devinder Kumar Malik ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Kamal Goel, Advocate, for Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents 1 and 2. Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition seeks for a direction for relaxation of age on the ground that he is physically handicapped and he is entitled to such consideration. By an order dated 17.12.2008, this Court directed the respondents to invite the petitioner for interview and the order had specifically provided that if the petitioner had qualified then his marks should be kept in a sealed cover and it should be presented in the Court at the next hearing date. On a contingency of the petitioner being not Civil Writ Petition No.21191 of 2008 - 2 - qualified, the Bench had directed that the respondents would be at liberty to declare the result. 2. On the date when the case was posted, the learned counsel for the respondent furnished to the Court a copy of the result of the interview held between the dates 15.12.2008 to 19.12.2008 which shows that the petitioner Devinder Kumar Malik had not qualified for consideration. The copy shows that the petitioner had not furnished the details of the degree along with the application. The advertisement spells out that an application must reach the office of the Chief Administrator, HUDA (Establishment Branch), Panchkula upto 20th August, 2008, failing which, the application shall be rejected and that further in the absence of documents in support of the qualification, age, fee etc., the application is also liable to be rejected. The rejection of the petitioner out of consideration has been on the basis that the degree certificates had not been submitted along with the application and even if age relaxation were to be given, the application was not entitled to be considered for a breach of a condition in the advertisement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks for time to secure instructions from the petitioner as to whether the reasons for rejecting the petitioner for consideration was justified or not. The writ petitioner's plea in the writ petition is that he was entitled to age relaxation on the ground that he was physically handicapped and that direction had been given and his application was directed to be considered. If there is any other disqualification that has arisen or any other condition set out in the advertisement that is breached, by the order Civil Writ Petition No.21191 of 2008 - 3 - passed by the Bench, there was no fetter on the respondents to take that into consideration and take an appropriate decision. In this case, the rejection of the petitioner's application was on the ground that the condition in the advertisement relating to furnishing of proof of the degree had not been attached. It obtains to the petitioner an independent cause of action if he is aggrieved or if he were to contend that the reasons for rejection of his application are in some way faulted. Reserving to the petitioner a liberty to approach this Court, if the reason for rejection of his candidature is not found to be true, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.03.2010 sanjeev