LAWS(P&H)-2005-1-2

PARAMJIT SINGH WALIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On January 17, 2005
PARAMJIT SINGH WALIA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.

(2.) The petitioner had applied in response to an advertisement dated 20.3.1998 for two different posts of Executive Officer Class III, Post Codes 1 and 22. He appeared in the written test. The result of the written examination was declared on 4/5th of October, 1998 and the petitioner was declared successful. He was subsequently called for interview but he was not selected. Aggrieved against his non-selection, one Kulbir Singh who was similarly situated as the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5646 of 1999. He, however, subsequently filed a miscellaneous application for permission to withdraw the writ petition. Consequently, while accepting the prayer, the Court directed the writ petition to be treated as one filed as Public Interest Litigation. Thereafter, numerous other petitions were filed. The petitioner had also filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9359 of 1999 challenging his non- selection. All the petitions were heard together.

(3.) During the Counsel of the hearing of the petitions, the State of Punjab submitted that a fresh selection would be made, after strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed. The petitioner again appeared in the selection process. He was, however, again not selected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner had been wrongly allotted two roll numbers for the examination. For the post against Code No. 1, the petitioner was assigned Roll No. 14053 and Roll No. 14640 was assigned for the post against Code No. 22. In the written examination, he was arbitrarily given 122 marks in the written examination in Roll.No. 14053 and 142 Marks in Roll No. 14640. The respondents have arbitrarily considered 122 marks as the marks obtained by the petitioner and ignored the 142 marks. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the official respondents have appointed respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who were not even mentioned in the select list.