CWP No.18691 of 2007.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18691 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.01.2010 **** Charanpreet Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. S.K. Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct his appointment as Mathematics Master on the basis of his placement in the merit list prepared by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab as well as the C-DAC, Mohali. (2). The petitioner belongs to General category. It is not in dispute that the petitioner got 66.85% marks as per the prescribed criteria laid down in the advertisement dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure P6) and his overall merit position is 133.70%. It is the categoric case of the respondents that the last CWP No.18691 of 2007.doc - 2 – candidate appointed pursuant to the above-stated advertisement got 68.58% marks and his merit position was 134.25%, above to the petitioner. It is also the categoric case of the respondents that no candidate lower in merit to the petitioner has been appointed. (3). As regards the petitioner’s contention that there are about 51 candidates, who like the petitioner, had applied in response to both the advertisements and have been offered appointment twice, respondents No.1 and 2 have taken a categoric stand in paragraphs 2 and 3 of their counter-affidavit, which read as under:- “2. That the petitioner has staked his claim for the post of Mathematics Master on the ground that the merit of the petitioner is very close to the merit obtained by the last selected candidate and some posts have remained vacant on account of the fact that some candidates have been selected for the posts of Mathematics Masters simultaneously during two different processes of selection made in pursuance of advertisements dated 12.6.2006 and 27.10.2006 (Annexure P4 and P6). 3. That the selection in furtherance of above mentioned two advertisements have been made on the basis of merit lists CWP No.18691 of 2007.doc - 3 – drawn independently for each advertisement and appointments have been made subsequently on the basis of above mentioned independently drawn merit lists. Appointments for 150 posts of Mathematics Masters in pursuance of advertisement dated 12.6.2006 (Annexure P4) and for 125 posts in pursuance of advertisement dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure P6) have been issued. The petitioner being lower in merit, could not find his place in either of the lists of selected candidates. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no waiting lists prepared during the present selection. The petitioner has secured his merit as 66.85% as per the prescribed criteria as laid down vide advertisement dated 27.10.2006 which is lower than the 68.58% the merit secured by the last male candidate selected in the category of petitioner. Similarly, in response to the advertisement dated 12.6.2006 (Annexure P4) the petitioner has secured his merit 132.60 whereas the last selected candidate has secured the merit 134.25.” (4). It is the case of the respondents that no waiting list was prepared. Rather the vacant posts have been subsequently advertised on 29.08.2007 (Annexure P10) and the candidates selected pursuant thereto have already been appointed. CWP No.18691 of 2007.doc - 4 – (5). The reliance placed upon by the petitioner on a Division Bench decision of this Court in CWP No.16786 of 2007 titled as Varinder Pal Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 06.02.2008 is also misplaced as that was a case where the supplementary advertisement/corrigendum was issued by the same Recruiting Agency pertaining to those very posts which were earlier advertised. There, seven candidates applied in response to the original advertisement as well as the corrigendum and their names figured twice in the selection list. The Division Bench rightly observed that there was an error in the preparation of the merit list the same candidate could not be selected or offered appointment against more than one post. (6). In the light of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case of any indefeasible right to seek appointment even if it is assumed that he was deemed to be in the waiting list. (7). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 11.01.2010 CWP No.18691 of 2007.doc - 5 – vishal shonkar