Dismissed
Sunil Dutt v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Punjab & Haryana HCLPA/612/2010
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
L.P.A. No. 612 of 2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No. 612 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 23.08.2010
Sunil Dutt
-----Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and other
---Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate for the appellant
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The unsuccessful petitioner has filed instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 17.09.2009 of the learned Single Judge rendered while disposing of bunch of petitions. The impugned judgment also disposed of C.W.P. No. 20103 of 2004, titled as “Sunil Dutt v. State of Haryana and others”, which was filed by the appellant. The grievance made by the appellant is that the facts of other cases, which were decided alongwith this case by the learned Single Judge were different than the one projected in the case in hand. The appellant also tried to persuade the learned Single Judge to review its order but attempt has failed as the review application has also been rejected vide order dated 11.01.2010. According to the allegation made by the petitioner, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for
L.P.A. No. 612 of 2010 (O&M) -2-
Buglers. The appellant had applied and was considered but his marks were far below the last selected candidate. Numerous allegations against the members of the Selection Board were made alleging that they had changed the mark-sheet. The learned Single Judge had taken the facts from C.W.P. No. 352 of 2004, which pertains to the recruitment of Constables. In that case also, marks secured by the last general category candidate selected for the post of Constable were far higher than the petitioner. Likewise in the present case, it is conceded position that the appellant had secured less marks than the last selected candidate. There is no substance in the allegation that result of examination was tampered with. The appeal does not merit admission and the same is liable to be dismissed.
For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
August 23, 2010 Atul
Sunil Dutt
State of Haryana and other
M.M. KUMAR
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court