Ganga Ram v. State Of Haryana And Another

2023:PHHC:154701 CWP-1190-2023 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1190-2023 Date of Decision: 05.12.2023 Ganga Ram

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Ms. Santosh Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravinder Singh Budhwar, Addl. AG, Haryana *** TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 10.02.2022, Annexure P-8, for the post of carpenter under disabled persons category for which he is eligible. 2.

As per facts apparent on record, the Commission vide advertisement no.1 of 2020, Annexure P-1, advertised thirty-three posts of carpenter, out of which one post was advertised for Persons with Disabilities (PwD), with sub-category as 'deaf and hard of hearing'. 3.

The petitioner, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, submitted an application form as such for the advertised post under PwD category. At the same time, he mentioned in the form that the PwD sub-category was 'not PAYAL 2023.12.11 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

2023:PHHC:154701 CWP-1190-2023 -2applicable' in his case. Learned counsel claims that the petitioner is suffering from fifty-five per cent locomotor disability. 4.

As per short affidavit, dated 29.09.2023, filed on behalf of the Commission, eight persons applied under the PwD category, of which two belonged to Ex-servicemen disabled category. Candidature of all of them was considered. Learned State counsel has also submitted that the petitioner's candidature was considered under SC category; he scored thirty-five marks in the written test, whereas cut-off marks for clearing the test were forty one. Accordingly, the petitioner was duly considered under the category he belonged to. He claims to be having locomotor disability, whereas the post was advertised for the sub-category 'deaf and hard of hearing' for which he was neither eligible, nor applied.

5.

In view of this factual background, there is no ground to entertain the petition.

6.

Dismissed.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 05.12.2023 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2023.12.11 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment