Civil Writ Petition No. 20621 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 20621 of 2010 Date of decision : 13.10.2011 Harmeet Singh and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioners have preferred this petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant weightage to the rural area candidates as was given in previous selection in the year 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to advertisement dated 23.09.2009 for 3638 posts of Master/Mistress, the petitioners appeared in the selection test. They being from rural areas were entitled to weightage of 05 marks as was granted in the similar selection held in the year 2007. However, the respondents failed to grant the weightage due to which petitioners were not selected. He has thus prayed that a direction needs to be issued to the respondents to grant weightage to candidates belonging to rural areas. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer. He submits that in the advertisement issued by department no such criteria giving weightage to the candidates of rural areas was laid down. He Civil Writ Petition No. 20621 of 2010 2 submits that it is the discretion of the employer to lay down criteria for a particular selection. It thus cannot be said to be a case of discrimination. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that in the advertisement dated 23.09.2009, no weightage was kept for candidates belonging to rural areas. The petitioners appeared in the selection test fully aware of the advertisement as published by the department. In case some weightage was granted to the rural areas candidates for the selection which was held in 2007, it would give no legal right to the petitioners to claim similar weightage in the subsequent selection held by the department. In a similar writ petition preferred before this court pertaining to advertisement dated 23.09.2009, order Annexure R- 1 was passed dismissing the petition. In view of above, I am of the considered view that there is no case made out for interference in writ jurisdiction of this court. Dismissed. October 13, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE