Civil Writ Petition No. 10880 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10880 of 2009 Date of decision : 12.12.2011 Karambir Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to select and appoint him on the post of JBT/ETT teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was duly selected. However, his candidature was rejected merely on the ground that he did not have a Punjabi as a subject at the level of matriculation. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer. He submits that petitioner has no cause of action as he did not have the necessary qualification in terms of para 8 of the general conditions in the advertisement. According to him, in the absence of proof of the petitioner having passed Punjabi at the level of matriculation, he would not be entitled for appointment. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that an advertisement was issued in September, 2007 Civil Writ Petition No. 10880 of 2009 2 inviting applications for the post of JBT/ETT teachers. It was clearly mentioned in the same that candidates will have to submit proof of their having passed Punjabi at the matriculation level or equivalent. The petitioner failed to produce any proof to show that he had passed Punjabi at the matriculation level. It was thus found that he did not fulfill the eligibility condition and his candidature was rejected. Only ground agitated by the petitioner is that he had passed Punjabi at the higher level than the matriculation and thus he could not have been rejected. This argument is not convincing. The petitioner was well aware of the fact that in terms of advertisement, he was required to have Punjabi at the matriculation level and was to produce the proof of having passed the same. Despite lack of said qualification, he participated in the selection process. Having been found ineligible as he did not posses necessary qualification in terms of advertisement, he was not offered appointment. I am of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. December 12, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE