IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1146 of 2007 Date of decision: 06.01.2009 Chandi Ram, Bhiwani ...... Petitioner versus State of Haryana & others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anil Kumar Saini, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This judgment will decide two writ petitions No.1146 & 16722 of 2007. CWP No.1146 of 2007 has been filed challenging the appointment of respondents No.3 & 4 on the ground that they do not possess the essential qualifications for the post of Plastic Processing Operator Instructor and are not eligible candidates. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it has been mentioned that the said respondents are eligible and that the petitioner was below respondents No.3 & 4 in merit and thus could not be selected over them. However, interestingly in the second writ petition No.16722 of 2007 the petitioner therein possesses identical qualifications as those which the petitioner in CWP No.1146 of 2007 possesses. In his case, the respondents have considered CWP No.1146 of 2007 -2- him ineligible on the ground that he does not hold the essential qualifications required for the job. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in these circumstances, where the eligibility of the petitioner has not been doubted in the written statement filed in CWP No.1146 of 2007, the stand taken in CWP No.16722 of 2007 by the respondent is, at best anomalous and at worst, contradictory. He prays that the official respondent be directed to take a reasoned decision on the eligibility of the candidates. I find this to be a justified prayer. In the circumstances, the respondent No.1 is directed to have the matter regarding the eligibility of the petitioner/s and the respondents Deepak Kataria and Ashu Saini (respondents No.3 & 4 in CWP No.1146 of 2007) examined by such expert/s as he considers appropriate. The respondent No.1 is directed to ensure that the needful is done within two months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petitions are disposed of. January 06, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE