IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.1531 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 05, 2011 Keshav Sharma and another ….Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate. 1. To be referred to the Report or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.9.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellants. The reason given by learned single Judge is that the appellants had earlier filed C.W.P. No.5017 of 2009 seeking preferential treatment for appointment to the post of Family Welfare Extension Educator. The aforesaid relief was claimed on the basis of directions given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. That petition was dismissed. In any case, the learned single Judge also dealt with the argument while dismissing the writ petition from which the present appeal has emerged. According to learned single Judge, the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court did not contain any direction for giving any preferential treatment to the appellants for the purposes of appointment. It has further been noticed that the order shows that Hon'ble the Supreme Court did not give any direction binding in nature because it was a selection on a public post and it was not L.P.A. No.1531 of 2010 -2- considered proper to direct the Selection Board to give any preferential treatment. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has expressed the hope that the case of the appellants was to be considered sympathetically by taking into account their past experience and if possible some preference was to be given, if possible. The learned single Judge has extracted the paragraph from the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court which substantiate the fact that there was no direction of binding nature. Moreover, the appellants have been awarded marks for experience but still they could not make the grade. They have secured 37.07 and 37.38 marks, respectively, whereas the last candidate selected in the general category had secured 41.64. marks. Therefore, there is a difference of more than four marks. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge. We are satisfied that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference and the appeal is wholly mis-conceived. There is no merit in the appeal, which is, therefore, dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 05, 2011 JUDGE satish