KAMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the direction to call him for his personal interview for entrance to the JBT Course as he was not given opportunity to appear, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 722 of 2004 Ravinder Baloria-vs- State of H.P. and others or alternatively prayed to compensate him in terms of money.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY , the case of the petitioner has been that he had appeared in the JBT examination under Roll No. 342109 and qualified the written examination. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other candidates was called for the personal interview and was declared selected on declaration of the result on 15-10-2004 for admission to the said Course. The result of the 'JBT Entrance Test' was challenged in Civil writ petition no. 722 of 2004. Amongst others, the petitioner also being effected party, therefore, he was given an opportunity to defend himself in that writ petition. Ultimately, the selection of the candidates for JBT course was quashed by this Court and the respondents were directed that they may call the candidates who have qualified the written test in the year 2004 for the interviews on the criteria fixed by the Court. Pursuant to that, the respondents issued the call letters to the successful candidates on the basis of the result declared in the written examination which was held on 18.4.2002, the interviews were fixed with effect from 20.7.2006 to 21.7. 2006. It is alleged that since the petitioner had qualified the written examination, he was required to be called for the interview by the respondents. When he did not get any call letter, he enquired the reasons for not calling him for the interview but no satisfactory reply was given by the respondents but the respondent no. 3 had informed him that the call letter was sent to the petitioner under "postal certificate" whereas the petitioner did not receive the same.

(3.) THE respondents have filed the reply. The sum and substance of their pleadings is that the respondents had complied with the directions of this Court passed in Civil writ petition No. 722 of 2004. The notice regarding the interview was also published in the newspapers. In addition to it, the letter for personal interview along with other candidates was also sent to the petitioner 'under certificate of posting' copy whereof has been placed on the record as Annexure R4/4 along with the copy of certificate of posting Annexure R4/5. Since the petitioner did not appear in the interview, therefore, no fault can be found with the respondents, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.