AJAY GROVER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the applicant for recruitment against 700 posts of Computer Faculty Teacher. The application was to be submitted on line upto 31.12.2011. Recruitment was to be based on the merit determined in a written test to be held by the authorities. No marks were assigned to the interview. Written test was conducted on 18.03.2012 in which the appellant secured 31.25 marks. In the advertisement, the following general instructions were issued:

(2.) IT was specifically stated that roll number and examination centre will be displayed on the website of the department. It was further stated that appearing in the examination and qualifying the test does not entitle the candidate for appointment to the post. The selection shall be subject to candidate's eligibility for the post and availability of vacancy. It was further stated that verification of original documents would be done at the time of counseling /joining. The purpose would be to verify the different record regarding the identification, age, qualifying examination, state of eligibility, category etc. of the candidate. Through that process, if the candidate failed to furnish any of the documents, he/she shall not be considered for appointment. The candidates were advised to regularly look into the website of the department, address of which was given in the said advertisement. The first counseling took place between 28.09.2012 to 30.09.2012. The appellant did not participate in the same, as he was not eligible to appear in the same. Thereafter second counseling took place between 11.03.2013 to 13.03.2013. It was so notified in the four newspapers, namely, Jag Bani, Punjab Kesri, Daily Ajeet and Hindustan Times on 01.03.2013. Notice also appeared on the website of the department. Admittedly, the appellant failed to participate in the second counseling on account of which, he was not selected. Thereafter, he filed an application on 25.03.2013 seeking appointment against the advertised post when no action was taken, the appellant came to this Court by filing CWP No. 9093 of 2013, which was disposed of on 16.07.2013 directing the respondent authorities to take final decision qua grievance of the appellant.

(3.) THE appellant again came to this Court by filing CWP No. 22692 of 2013 reiterating his prayer for appointment, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 02.12.2013. Hence, this appeal.