LPA No.646 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.646 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.09.2011 Tejinder Singh ... Appellant versus Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present : Mr. S.S.Malik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A. S.Virk, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 7, 9, 10 to 15 & 18. **** Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 19.03.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition No.2217 of 2009 vide which the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed. At the very outset it may be noticed that there is a delay of 289 days in filing the present appeal for which the appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant had been suffering from depression. Respondent Nos.1 and 12 have filed their respective replies to the application seeking condonation and have vehemently opposed the prayer seeking condonation of delay. A perusal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on LPA No.646 of 2011 (O&M) -2- behalf of the appellant would make it apparent that a flimsy ground of being under depression has been cited as a basis for seeking condonation of delay. No material/document has been placed on record to substantiate the basis of such contention. The court under such circumstances would be inclined to dismiss the appeal on the ground of delay alone. Be that as it may the matter is also being adjudicated upon on merits. A brief factual narration leading to the filing of the instant appeal would be necessary. The respondent-University advertised 17 posts of Laboratory Attendant under Self Financing Scheme vide advertisement No.1/2007. Along with the advertisement detailed instructions pertaining to the advertisement in question were also issued. In terms thereof it was made clear that the prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The University may short list the candidates for interview by holding a written examination on the basis of a rational criteria to be adopted for such purpose. Admittedly a written test was initially held in which the maximum marks assigned were 150. In terms of the pleadings on record, the University has set out a criteria for selection of the candidates wherein the total marks for selection of the candidate have been assigned as 100 with the following distribution: (a) 50 marks for written test i.e. 1/3 rd of the maximum. (b) 10 marks for educational qualification. (c) 10 marks for experience. (d) 30 marks for interview. In pursuance of the aforesaid criteria having been laid down and followed, the University embarked upon the selection process LPA No.646 of 2011 (O&M) -3- which has resulted in the appointment of the private respondents as Laboratory Attendants. The appellant having remained unsuccessful filed CWP No.2217 of 2009 and the same having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, resultantly the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised a two-fold submission. Firstly, it has been sought to be contended that the criteria for selection has been changed mid stream i.e. after the issuance of the advertisement. The second limb of the argument is that excessive marks have been earmarked for the interview and the same was not permissible. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are wholly misplaced. The respondent-University has formulated a criteria and has followed the same across the board. In terms of such criteria, the total marks assigned for selection of a candidate for the post of Laboratory Attendant has been fixed as 100 out of which 30 marks have been earmarked for the interview. 50 marks have been earmarked for the written test and for such purpose a proportionate down scaling of the maximum marks for the written test held has been done i.e. 1/3 rd of the maximum and correspondingly 1/3 rd of the actual marks obtained by each candidate. Clearly there has been no deviation from the criteria adopted by the University. The criteria itself is valid and is not arbitrary. It cannot be said that there has been any change in selection criteria mid stream and neither does it lie in the mouth of the appellants to contend that they have suffered any prejudice on account of the University having followed the laid down criteria and having conducted the selection resulting in the appointment of the private respondents to the posts of of Laboratory Attendants in LPA No.646 of 2011 (O&M) -4- pursuance to such selection process. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The advertisement in question was issued by the University in January, 2007. The selection process was initiated immediately thereafter and the recommendations of the Selection Committee were made on 20.07.2007 which ultimately led to the issuance of the appointment letters in favour of the private respondents. The writ petition filed by the appellants was only in the month February, 2009. As such there was a gross and unexplained delay even in terms of filing of writ petition. For the reasons stated above, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits. There shall be no order as regards costs. (Permod Kohli) (Tejinder Singh Dhindsa) Judge Judge September 30, 2011 sonia