CWP No. 21862 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21862 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 08, 2010 Arun Kumar .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Punjab Public Service Commission ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. APS Rehan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue roll no. to the petitioner to take main exam for Punjab State Civil Services, Combined Competitive Examination, 2009, Executive Branch. 2. It has been pleaded that the petitioner has been shown ineligible because certain ovals were not darkened by the petitioner, as was required for correctly filling the application form. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner made a representation vide Annexure P-1 which, however, has not been considered by the respondents. 3. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was at Delhi attending coaching classes for PCS Judicial Main examination and, therefore, the petitioner has a viable reason to file representation beyond the date provided in public notice. CWP No. 21862 of 2010 2 4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 5. It is the admitted position that the Punjab Public Service Commission invited objections from candidates who have been shown as ineligible, to be filed on or before 31.08.2010. The petitioner filed a representation/objection on 08.11.2010. 6. In such circumstances, in my considered opinion, the petitioner has no right to have his representation considered. There would be a number of persons who did not file objections/representations by 31.08.2010. By allowing the petitioner to make corrections in the application form, inequality would be created, which is not permissible in law. 7. Further, I am of the opinion that a person who is applying for PCS (Executive Branch) is expected to fill his application form correctly because a form is attached with the instructions book/brochure to clarify to the candidates the mode of filling the application form. The petitioner, despite such clear instructions, did not fill the application form correctly. When the petitioner was given an opportunity to file objections/representation within stipulated time vide a public notice, the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity and remained dormant. In such circumstances, the petitioner does not have the right to seek issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide representation/objections filed by the petitioner. 8. No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 9. Petition dismissed. 08.12.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE CWP No. 21862 of 2010 3 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?