132
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP NO. 13206 OF 2022
DATE OF DECISION : 04.07.2022
Jaswinder ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present : Mr. S. S. Kaushik, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. AG, Haryana.
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking to quash selection and appointment of private respondents No.4 and 5. Allegedly, their selection has not been made in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in advertisement dated 04.09.2020 (Annexure P-4).
2. Concededly the post in question is a contractual one. Not only that, petitioner having unsuccessfully participated for selection qua the same, subsequently filed the instant writ petition claiming that interview marks have been given without adopting any criteria.
3. On the aforesaid two counts alone, this Court would refrain to interfere under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to judicially review the selections of respondents No.4 and 5 on contractual posts.
4. Criteria for selection was duly advertised vide advertisement dated 04.09.2020 (Annexure P-4) and it was open to the petitioner to challenge the same prior to his participation in the selection processon the ground 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 06-07-2022 22:33:48 ::: CWP NO. 13206 OF 2022 -2- that same is either not transparent and/or does not disclosethe procedure to be adopted for awarding of interview marks. On the contrary, the petitioner first preferred to participate in the selection process and it was only when declared unsuccessful, he turned around to challenge the criteria at a belated stage.
4. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment dated 24.10.2017 rendered by this Court in CWP No. 15287 of 2016 in case titled "Dr. Balkar Singh v. State of Haryana and others" (Annexure P-17) seems to be totally misplaced inasmuch as selection in the said case was made without there being any advertised criteria which is not a case herein, as is borne out from advertisement dated 04.09.2020 (Annexure P-4) wherein the criteria has been laid down as below :- REPRODUCE
5. In view of the above, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.
6. Dismissed.
JULY 04, 2022 (ARUN MONGA)
Shalini JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 06-07-2022 22:33:48 :::