CWP No.6165 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:29.01.2009 Jalvinder Singh ... Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents. CORAM; HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.BS Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr.KK Gupta, Advocate,for respondent No.3. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board issued advertisement No.2/96 inviting applications for 168 posts of Clerks. Reservations was made according to the rules for various categories. Of course, another advertisement No.1/1997 was issued on 20.07.1997 inviting applications to fill up 892 posts of Clerks in various departments of the Punjab Government. It is also mentioned in the advertisements that the candidates who had applied in response to earlier advertisement, need not to apply again. The petitioner applied for the post of Clerk in response to the advertisement aforesaid in physically handicapped category. Written test for the post was held on 01.02.1998 and after the written test, he was called for typing test and the result of the same was declared on 23.04.1999. Successful candidates were called for interview by the Boar from 04.05.1999 to 20.05.1999. On the basis of the performance in the written test, typing test and the interview, final selection list was declared on CWP No.6165 of 2008 -2- 26.05.2001. The aforesaid list was supplemented by a corrigendum dated 02.06.2001, Annexure P-3. By virtue of the corrigendum, vacancies for the physically handicapped category were increased from 24 to 25. The grievance of the petitioner is that he came to know that respondent No.3, with lessor merit, has been selected and appointed. The petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act to secure the merit list which has been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner secured 71.33 marks in the selection whereas the last selected candidate in the physically handicapped category secured 71.5 marks. It has been informed to the petitioner that the last selected candidate in the physically handicapped category secured 71.5 marks. Another information supplied to the petitioner is that respondent No.3 stands appointed. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.3 in the present writ petition. Separate replies have been filed by the official respondents as also the private respondents. The stand of the official respondents is that respondent No.3 Satnam Singh has been recommended in Backward Class Category having secured 71 marks because the last selected candidate in Backward Class category had secured 70 marks. It is further stated that the petitioner has no comparison with respondent No.3 in the matter of appointment as Clerks as the petitioner and respondent No.3 belong to different categories. It is further indicated in the reply that the last recommended candidate in Handicapped category had 71.5 marks whereas the petitioner is having 71.33 marks. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner could not be selected and appointed. CWP No.6165 of 2008 -3- Mr.Chahal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the state of Punjab states that the category of respondent No.3 was changed from the physically handicapped to Backward Class at his request as respondent No.3 belongs to Backward Class category as well and on the basis of his merit, respondent No.3 has been selected against the available vacancy. From the above facts, it is clear that respondent No.3 has not been selected and appointed in the physically handicapped category, rather he has been selected in the Backward Class category though with the lessor merit than the petitioner. The last selected candidate in the physically handicapped category had secured 71.5 marks whereas the petitioner has lessor marks i.e. 71.33 than the last selected candidate. Respondent No.3,though selected with lessor merit, has not eaten the vacancy from physically handicapped category. As a matter of fact, no person in the physically handicapped category with lessor merit than the petitioner has been selected. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Even though, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief, yet the fact remains is that the official respondents have granted undue benefit to respondent No.3 by changing his category from physically handicapped to Backward Class category. It is admitted fact that respondent No.3 did not apply in the Backward Class category and it was only after selection at the request of respondent No.3, his category was changed. Such a re- course is not permissible in law. Learned counsel for respondent states that a Show Cause Notice has been issued to the petitioner along with some other employees CWP No.6165 of 2008 -4- but the same stands challenged by filing Civil Writ Petition No.19230 of 2008 which is pending adjudication for 20.04.2009. In view of the pendency of the writ petition aforesaid, no further observations are needed in the present writ petition as it is for the authority to look into the merit of the controversy or the writ Court where the petition aforesaid is pending. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The present writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 29.01.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO