IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CASE NO.: CWP No.6112-CAT of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 3rd March,2009 Amarjit Singh .......Petitioner versus The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for respondents No.2, 3,4 and 8 to 15. Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate for respondents No.5, 7, 16 to 18 and 20 to 25. Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.19. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The challenge, herein, in this petition is to the order dated 20-07-2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal') vide which the prayer to quash the selection in respect of A.S.Is in the Chandigarh Police has been rejected. 15 posts of A.S.I were advertised in the daily “The Tribune” dated 11-05-1997 for recruitment in the Chandigarh Police. The petitioner applied for the said post. A written test was held on 05-07-1997. The petitioner appeared for the same and cleared the test. A list of qualified candidates CWP No.6112-CAT of 2006 -2- for interview, who passed the physical test, including individual events, was displayed on the Notice Board. The list was comprised of 43 candidates. Name of respondent No.5 did not figure in the list displayed on the Notice board. The petitioner cleared the physical test and was called for interview vide letter dated 08-08-1997, which was held on 30-09-1997. The Select list was published on 05-09-1997.The name of the petitioner did not find figure in the Select list, whereas, the name of respondent No.5-Amanjot Singh figured at Sr.No.4 in the list of the selected candidates. The petitioner represented to the authority to consider his name for the post of A.S.I. When, no action was taken on the representation, the petitioner filed O.A before , Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh seeking quashing of the selection of the private respondents. All the respondents filed their separate written statement. The O.A was finally dismissed vide order dated 20-07-2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that respondent No.5 did not clear the physical test and was eliminated for the purpose of interview as per the list of qualifying candidates for the interview. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances, the allegations of mala fide against the Selection Committee members stand proved. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined the record produced by the respondents. From the perusal of the record, we found that respondent No. 5 had, infact, participated in various stages of CWP No.6112-CAT of 2006 -3- physical efficiency. However, he did not appear for the race, as on the date of the race, there was heavy rainfall and under the mistaken belief that the race may not be held, missed the race. Thus, all those candidates who could not participate in the race, made a representation. The representation was accepted and 8 such candidates along with respondent No.5 were allowed to participate in the race. Thus, the allegation that the petitioner did not participate in the physical efficiency test, is incorrect. The fact that the name of respondent No.5 was missing in the list of successful candidates and was eligible for the interview, is correct but it was vehemently argued that the same was a clerical error and the name of respondent No.5 was erroneously left out. When respondent No.5 did not find his name in the list, he filed an application for re-checking as he was sure that he had secured the minimum qualifying marks in the written test. The representation was examined by the competent authority. On verification, it was found that respondent No.5 had been awarded 3 ½ marks in Essay but while counting, only 3 marks were carried over. In order to satisfy ourselves, we checked the Essay paper and found that respondent No.5 had been actually granted 3 ½ marks in Essay and the mistake occurred while counting for the marks as 3 instead of 3 ½. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that there is absolutely no tampering with the marks. Hence, we have no hesitation in concluding that respondent No.5 had been given 3 ½ marks in essay and not 3 marks. If correct marks 3 ½ instead of 3 marks are taken into consideration, he stands qualified. Even otherwise, there is no allegation as to why anyone would try to do him special favour.There is no allegation that he is related CWP No.6112-CAT of 2006 -4- to anyone or he is influential. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. A candidate has a right to ask for re-checking and during re-checking, if it is found that the marks were wrongly calculated, he has an equal right for correction of the result. This is exactly, what has happened in the present case. The petitioner cannot hold the correction of an error against respondent No.5. The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.6-Naveen Sharma is the son of D.S.P in Chandigarh Police. This allegation, in itself, is not sufficient to set aside the selection. Being a son of Police Officer, in itself, is not a disqualification. Favoritism has been alleged even against respondent No.7-Shadi Lal on account of the fact that he was a Gunman with the S.S.P., Chandigarh Police. On examination of the record, the Tribunal found that he had secured the highest marks among all the candidates in the paper of G.K. There is nothing to show or prove that marks given during the interview were in any manner excessive. The allegations of the petitioner are, therefore, only imaginary and a mere apprehension. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of any merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 03, 2009 gurpreet