Civil Writ Petition No.5864 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: October 24, 2009 Rajinder Singh & another ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Satish Garg,Advocate, for Mr.Inderpal Goyal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4,7,9 & 10. Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.7. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of four Civil Writ Petition Nos.5864 of 2007 (Rajinder Singh & another Vs. State of Haryana & others), 6210 of 2007 (Surender Vs. State of Haryana & others), 8418 of Civil Writ Petition No.5864 of 2007 : 2 : 2007 (Gurcharan Sharma Vs. State of Haryana & others) and 14992 of 2007 (Mukesh Mongia Vs. State of Haryana & others). The facts are being taken from CWP No.5864 of 2007. The petitioners have been shown working as Drawing Instructors on regular basis having different qualifications. They also claim to be having a brilliant academic record. An advertisement was issued on 14.9.2006 inviting applications for 8 posts of Principal Grade-II-Vice Principal/Senior Apprenticeship Supervisor (Technical) for appointment in the Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department, Haryana. Subsequently, corrigendum was issued on 17.12.2006 increasing the posts from 8 to 14. The petitioners and others were short listed for interview. The result of selection after interview was declared on 30.3.2007. The petitioners did not make the grade and accordingly filed these writ petitions. The reply initially was filed on 17.1.2008 by the Commission disclosing that the candidates selected had obtained higher marks than the petitioners and accordingly justified their rejection as well as the selection of the private respondents. The counsel appearing for the petitioners made reference to the advertisement with special emphasis to the condition that preference was to be given to the candidates possessing degree or diploma in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering. The plea is that the petitioners were possessing this qualification, which, none of the respondents had and accordingly it was submitted that they would have a preferential claim for appointment in comparison to the respondents, who had been appointed. During the course of hearing of the petitions, this court Civil Writ Petition No.5864 of 2007 : 3 : directed the respondents to explain as to whether the qualifications of the petitioners would come under the heading of higher qualification and also to break up of marks given to various candidates. Accordingly, an additional affidavit was filed on 29.7.2009 giving out the break up of the various marks of the petitioners as well as of the respondents, who were selected. It is on this basis submitted that preference, which was to be shown, has become illusionary as there will hardly be a situation where two candidates would obtain identical marks so as to put into operation the preferential clause given in the advertisement. It is accordingly submitted that this part of the rule or the advertisement is meaningless ritual without having any effect. The counsel would plead that to be effective, it has to work on basis of showing preference to those who possess these qualifications. The stand of the respondents ofcourse is that if everything is otherwise equal, candidates possessing these diplomas or degrees would have preferential right of appointment. Once the criteria for selection has been made and assessment has been done on the basis of the said criteria, preference clause obviously will come into play if other things are equal. There can not be any other method to operate the preferential clause. If the preferential qualification alone is to be considered for appointment, then it would lead to excluding the others from consideration. I am, thus, not inclined to accept the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners to say that they will have any preferential right for appointment merely because they possess qualification which is to be preferred. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. October 24, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE