The petitioner challenged a revised merit list for a Junior Draftsman post due to his status being affected by absent higher candidates. The Court held the petitioner had no vested right and dismissed the petition.
Petition dismissed; respondents directed to consider petitioner's claim for appointment in the future per the revised merit list.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 15176 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.09.2011
Sukhpal Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Present : Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Chibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents.
SURYA KANT, J.(Oral)
The petitioner competed for the post of Junior Draftsman (Civil) and his name figured at Sr. No. 37 in the selection list amongst the Backward class candidates. He being a successful candidate was called for counselling on 19.5.2010. Meanwhile, several representations were received by the authorities from the candidates higher in merit who for on one or the other reasons were deprived of appearing in the counselling held on 19.5.2010. On consideration of their representations, a fresh counselling was held and the final selection list dated 26.7.2010 (Annexure P-7) was issued wherein the petitioner's placement has gone down. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court.
CWP No. 15176 of 2010
[2]
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that no candidate lower in merit has been given appointment, I do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere with the revised merit list. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner got no indefeasible or legally vested right for inclusion of his name in the merit list. However, if a candidate lower in merit is offered appointment in future and/or the turn of the petitioner as per his own merit list comes, the respondents shall consider his claim for appointment in accordance with law/Rules.
Dismissed.
22.09.2011
' ravinder'
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a legally vested right to appointment given the existence of higher merit candidates who were absent from counselling.
Sukhpal Singh
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
