Lakhvir Singh Chahal vs State of Punjab

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Screening Test held on 6.7.2014 and directing the respondents to hold a proper detailed enquiry into the incident dated 6.7.2014, during examination.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR Annexure P-4 would show that the accused named in the FIR was found using unfair means, during the examination, which will render the sanctity of the entire examination doubtful. He submits that till the matter is taken to its logical end by the investigating agency, the selection making authority, i.e. Punjab Public Service Commission-respondent No. 2 be restrained from proceeding further with the selection process. He prays for allowing the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is not a fit case, warranting any interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the following more than one reasons.

It is a matter of record and own pleaded case of the petitioner that FIR No. 119 dated 6.7.2014 has been registered against the candidate, who was indulging in unfair means, during examination. The case has been registered and the investigating agency is seized of the matter. In such a situation, there is nothing on record to show that the sanctity of entire examination shall be rendered doubtful. It goes without saying that investigating agency shall conduct the effective investigation and thereafter shall submit the police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. The matter shall be taken to its logical end. However, it is equally true that conclusion of the investigation and criminal trial will take its own time. No case has been made out to direct respondent No. 2 to stay its hands, in concluding the ongoing selection process.

Further, neither the petitioner has got any locus standi, nor any right of the petitioner is being infringed by the ongoing selection process. In fact, staying the selection process midway, in the manner petitioner is praying for, will not serve any purpose. It is equally true that no prejudice of any kind, whatsoever, is being caused to the petitioner.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.

Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.