LAWS(P&H)-2017-2-267

JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

Decided On February 01, 2017
JAGTAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed to challenge the selection of respondent No. 3 on the post of Constable in the Freedom Fighter category.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the respondent-State advertised 5578 posts later reduced to 5293 posts for male Constables in Punjab Police and District Police cadre by the advertisement published on 11.09.2010 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner applied and furnished all the necessary certificates required under the advertisement as well as an eligibility certificate, however, his name was not reflected in the merit list prepared under the Freedom Fighter category. Respondent No. 3 came to be selected against the said reserved post. It is contended that the selection of respondent No. 3 is illegal as he did not have the necessary qualification nor did he have the necessary certificates on the date the application form was to be submitted. Aggrieved against the said selection of respondent No. 3, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the said selection and with a prayer that the letter of appointment be issued to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the selection of respondent No. 3 is against the terms as mentioned in the advertisement. It is contended that the respondent No. 3 did not have the requisite documents on the date of submission of the application form. In fact, respondent No. 3 did not possess the certificate issued by the competent authority that he was the ward of a Freedom Fighter. It is also contended that the advertisement specifically mentioned that the application form completely filled in all aspects along with necessary documents/certificates must reach the Chairman, District Recruitment Board by 5.00 PM on 7th of October, 2010 and any application submitted thereafter would not be taken into consideration and as such the eligibility certificate furnished thereafter could not be relied upon to offer appointment to respondent No.