Narinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

Jagmohan Bansal, J

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutioon of India is seeking setting aside of selection list of candidates dated 07.12.20012 (Annexure P-2) for the recruuitment of Constables in District Fatehgarh Sahib.

The petitioner belongs to Schedduled Caste (Others) Category. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 29.09.20111 (Annexure P-1), he applied for the post of Coonstable. He secured 24 marks in the written test. He was not permitted to paarticipate in the interview thoughh he was called for interview.

Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate suubmits that petitioner was called for interview but he was not permitted to partiicipate on the ground that he has been wrongly called for interview. There were many candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner still they were called for interview.

Per contra, Mr. Pawan Kumaar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab submiits that in the selection list by mistake, category of few candidates was mentioned as Scheduled Caste (Others) whereas they belong to Scheduled Caste (Ex-servicemen) Categoory. The candidates who were called for interview having lesser marks thhan the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Casste (Ex-servicemen) Category whereas the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste (Others) Category. No candidate, belonging to Scheduled Caste (Others) Category, was interviewed who had secured less than 25 marks.

I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both sides and perused the reccord with their able assistance.

The petitioner is claiming that he was not interviewed despite being called. The interview process took place in 2012 and all the candidates have already been selected. As per reply of the respondent-State, there was typographical mistake in the result. The petittioner cannot take advantage of mistake either typographical or otherwise of thhe respondents. There is nothing on record disclosing that any candidate belonging to petitioner’s category who had secured leesser marks than him, has been selected. A period of more than 12 years has expired from the date of completion of recruitment process. This Court, at this belated stage, in view of disputed facts does not find it appropriate to ask the respondent-State to interrview him.

Inn view of above discussion andd findings, this Court is of the considered oppinion that present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.