Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Grover vs State Of Punjab & Others on 16 July, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CWP No. 9093 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 9093 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.07.2013
Ajay Grover ...... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & others ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral)
CM No. 8004 of 2013:
Application is allowed as prayed for. Annexure P-6 is taken on record.
CM disposed of.
CM No. 8005 of 2013:
Application is dismissed as not pressed.
Main case:
It has been asserted that the department of Education issued advertisement dated 03.12.2011 (Annexure P-1) advertising posts of Computer Faculty. It is further asserted that the petitioner who belongs to the Ex-Servicemen (Dependent) category possessed the essential prescribed qualifications and had applied for the post within the stipulated time frame. The petitioner was permitted to participate in the written examination held on 18.03.2012 and secured 31.25 marks. A counselling process was Kaur Harjeet 2013.07.19 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 9093 of 2013 (O&M) -2- conducted in November, 2012, which was limited only for the purpose of scrutinizing of original documents and not for determining any further merit. However, on account of the merit position of the petitioner, he was not eligible to participate in such process of counselling.
The grievance that has led to the filing of the instant writ petition is that the respondent-authorities have subsequently conducted a 2nd counselling on 12.03.2013 for which requisite publicity was not furnished and accordingly, the petitioner could not participate in the same. The categoric plea taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the candidates were never put to any prior notice that the subsequent counselling after the initial 1st counselling would be conducted.
That apart, counsel has placed reliance upon a medical certificate at Annexure P-6 to justify the non participation of the petitioner in the 2nd process of counselling held on 12.03.2013. Counsel contends that in such matters, the merit should be the sole determinative factor. The petitioner inspite of having secured 31.25 marks has been denied his vested right of consideration for appointment to the post, whereas candidates lower in merit i.e. having secured 27 marks have been permitted to attend the 2nd counselling. Counsel further apprises the Court that in pursuance to such 2nd counselling, the selection process has not attained finality and appointment letters have not yet been issued. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for issuance of directions to the respondent-authorities to afford to the petitioner a special chance of counselling in the light of his merit position.
Without making any observations as regards the merit of the claim raised in the present petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same by issuing directions to respondent No. 2 to consider the Kaur Harjeet 2013.07.19 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 9093 of 2013 (O&M) -3- claim/grievance of the petitioner and to take a final decision on the legal notice dated 07.04.2013 (Annexure P-5) strictly in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Disposed of.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) th 16 July, 2013 JUDGE harjeet Kaur Harjeet 2013.07.19 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document