SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him as a Patwari. The respondents contest this claim on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment. Few facts are noticed;

(2.) On February 14, 1989, the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, issued an advertisement, inviting applications for selection of Patwari candidates. In this advertisement it was stipulated that the applicants should be 18 years to 35 years of age on Ist January, 1989. Their names should be registered with the employment exchange. It was further provided that they should have passed the matriculation examination. On March 1,1989, it was published in various papers that" all those candidates who have 50% or more marks in matric/equivalent examination and whose applications for Patwar candidates have been received on or before 22.2.1989 in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, are required to appear for a written test (general studies) in the ground of Government College, Gurdaspur, at 11.00 A.M. on 5.3.1989....."Even though the petitioner had secured only 42% marks in the matriculation examination, he appeared in the written test. He qualified the test and was placed at No. 32 in the merit list. A copy of the result sheet has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. Before the competent authority could consider the case of the candidates for appointment, a C.W.P. No. 4902 of 1989 was filed in this Court challenging the action of the authorities in holding a written test for selection. This writ petition was dismissed vide order dated April 18,1990. The Bench took the view that "the laying down of a test and interview vide Annexure P-2, did not violate any of the rights of the petitioners". The petitioner was one of the respondents in this petition. Inspite of the dismissal of this writ petition, he was not deputed for training as a Patwari candidate. Consequently, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The only grievance of the petitioner is that having qualified the written test, he was entitled to be selected as a candidate and deputed for the training.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter-alia pointed out that since the petitioner had not secured 50% or more makrs in the Matriculation Examination, he was not eligible to appear in the written examination and as such he could not have been selected as a Patwar candidate. On this basis, the respondents resist the petitioner's claim and pray that the writ petition be dismissed.