Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shallu Bansal vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 August, 2014
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP no. 4076 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP no. 4076 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 25.08.2014
Shallu Bansal
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab
Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Salil Sablok, Advocate for respondent no.4.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner prays for preferential claim of appointment over respondent no.4 on the ground that Annexure P-6 is a list given out by respondent no.3 where the name of petitioner appears while the name of respondent no.4 did not even figure but yet the appointment has been given to him.
The petitioner had applied against the post of an Excise and Taxation Inspector pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.7.2011 which would indicate that three posts were reserved for physically challenged persons and the corrigendum issued to the advertisement segregated the reservation by assigning one post each to persons who are blind or having low vision; those with hearing impairment and persons with locomotive disability or cerebral palsy. The petitioner on the strength of Annexures P-6 and P-7 states that she was the only person who had applied for the post reserved for persons with impaired hearing and Annexures P-6 and P-7 REKHA 2014.08.28 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP no. 4076 of 2012 (O&M) 2 would bear out this fact. Despite this respondents went ahead to recommend names of 7 persons for medical examination and appointed respondent no.4.
Reply filed by official respondents and respondent no.4 belies claim of the petitioner altogether. The records would indicate that respondent no.4 was also an applicant in this category and he obtained 54.28 marks as against 34.93 obtained by the petitioner and there were as many as 7 persons in the category of persons with impaired hearing. There is also on record Annexure R-4/2, R-4/3 which indicates that the respondent no.4 had been in the process of selection in the preliminary and final examination as well. His assignment of merit in the list is also indicated from Annexure R-4/3. The facts thus overwhelmingly suggest that respondent no.4 was a claimant to the post reserved for individuals having impaired hearing and the grievance of the petitioner being the solitary claimant and yet denied consideration is not fortified from the facts on record. Petitioner has not filed any counter affidavit to counter the aforesaid facts.
Finding no irregularity in the selection, the instant petition is held to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
August 25, 2014 (MAHESH GROVER)
rekha JUDGE
REKHA
2014.08.28 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh