Gaurav Chaudhary v. Director, Pgi, Sector-12, Chandigarh And Others

CWP-13997-2019 page: [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. :13997 of 2019(O&M) Date of decision : August 29, 2019 Gaurav Choudhary

...Petitioner

Versus

Director, PGIMER Chandigarh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

Present:

Mr.Ajay Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. :

1.

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 01.05.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby Original Application No.060/01136/2017 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2.

The respondent PGIMER issued an advertisement for filling 76 posts of Sanitary Attendants Grade-III. The petitioner applied for the same. The written examination was conducted on 16.10.2016. The select list was displayed on the website on 18.05.2017. The detailed marks were displayed on 30.05.2017.

3.

The grouse of the petitioner was that he had visited the website of the respondents on 22.10.2016 but did not find any declaration of result. He received no intimation from the respondents regarding the result. The petitioner had obtained 55 marks whereas the last selected candidate in the

CWP-13997-2019 page: [2] unreserved quota had secured 52.75 marks. He prayed for setting aside the selection as persons lower in merit than him had been appointed. He also prayed that he be appointed on the post of Sanitary Attendant Grade-III as he has secured more marks than the last selected candidate. 4.

The case of the respondent PGIMER was that there was no requirement for communication of the result to the candidates. The advertisement for the post contained clear instructions for the candidates which the petitioner chose to ignore at his own peril. In paragraph (C) of the advertisement the selection procedure was delineated. As per this on the basis of written examination candidates three times of the number of vacancies were to be short-listed. The candidates were required to apply afresh on a given format along with all certificates/ documents/ testimonials, etc. Based on these documents the scrutiny of the applications would be done which would be based on recruitment rules, etc.

The merit list of the candidates who were found eligible on this basis would be prepared alongwith a waiting list from the short-listed candidates based on marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination. The result of the candidates was uploaded on the website i.e. www.pgimer.edu.in vide notice bearing No.PGI/RC/039/2016/7408 dated 22.10.2016 with the directions to submit their offline applications. No applicant was informed individually about the result.

5.

The petitioner did not submit his application as per format given in the result notice dated 22.10.2016.

6.

The Tribunal considered the aforesaid facts that the result notice was uploaded on 22.10.2016 on the website. While the other

CWP-13997-2019 page: [3] successful candidates followed instructions and submitted applications in time, the petitioner failed to do so. There was no requirement that any candidate would be provided information regarding the result through mobile phone or email. The fault thus was of the petitioner in not being vigilant. The OA was dismissed.

7.

There is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. We find no reason to interfere with the same. 8.

Consequently, this petition is dismissed.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE JUDGE August 29, 2019 gian Whether Speaking / Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes / No