C.W.P. No. 13797 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13797 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: 02.08.2011 Mohd. Sadiq and others ..........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. ML Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioners. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of order dated 20.5.2011 vide which the claim of the petitioners has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that earlier also the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing C.W.P. No. 4775 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.3.2011 with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the claim of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In compliance of the said directions issued by this Court, the claim of the petitioners has been considered and rejected. Learned counsel has inter alia challenged the selection of private respondents on the ground that the petitioners are more meritorious than the selected candidates and one of the candidate, namely, Mudasar Nayem was not even eligible for the post for which he was selected. C.W.P. No. 13797 of 2011 (2) Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the documents available on the record. Although the prayer in the petition is for quashing of order dated 20.5.2011 vide which the claim of the petitioners has been rejected but there is no such prayer in the petition for quashing the selection of the selected candidates. The only ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are more meritorious and some of the candidates have not joined after selection of the petitioners and being more meritorious, they can be adjusted against those posts. Nowhere neither in the argument nor in the petition it is the case of the petitioners that any candidate has not joined after selection and how the petitioners were more qualified. Simply by stating that they are more qualified is not a ground for interference with the selection already made. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected by passing a speaking order, which is annexed as Annexure P-10 with the petition and learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to pin point what is wrong with the rejection order. No ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. August 02, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE