Navdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS

C. W. P. No. 10574 of 2015 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 117 Case No. : C. W. P. No. 10574 of 2015 Date of Decision : May 25, 2015 Navdeep Singh ....

Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and others ....

Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * To be referred to Reporters or not ?

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? * * * Present :

Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

:

Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure P-2), whereby the respondents have selected 28 candidates to the post of Fireman. The petitioner further seeks the issuance of a direction to the respondents to set aside the selection of respondent no. 4 and in his place, select and appoint the petitioner as Fireman in Municipal Council, Samrala.

MONIKA 2015.05.28 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

C. W. P. No. 10574 of 2015 2 In this petition, though the selection of 28 candidates is under challenge, only one of them has been arrayed as a respondent. The impugned selection took place in October 2012 and the present writ has been filed after over 21⁄2 years, without any justifiable reason for the delay.

The appointment of respondent no. 4 is sought to be challenged on the ground of mala fide alleged against one Harbans Singh, who has not been arrayed as a party to the present petition. Even otherwise, the allegations against the above said Harbans Singh are vague and unsubstantiated.

In the writ petition, the petitioner has given a comparative table, on the basis of which, he proclaims that he is more meritorious than respondent no. 4. It is submitted that he deserved more marks than respondent no. 4 in the interview as he has more merit than him. I am afraid that on vague and unsubstantiated claims, I do not intend to tinker with the decision of the selection Board, especially in view of the facts stated above. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. No costs.

( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE May 25, 2015 monika MONIKA 2015.05.28 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document