Ramandeep Kaur v. State Of Punjab And ORS

CWP-13268-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13268-2024 Date of Decision : 30.05.2024 RAMANDEEP KAUR ... PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

*** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of selection of respondent No.6 to the post of Information Technology Officer (ITO). 2.

The petitioner is assailing appointment of respondent No.6 to the post of Information Technology Officer (ITO). The petitioner and respondent No.6 pursuant to advertisement No.05 of 2021 applied for the aforesaid post advertised by Punjab Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner secured 221 marks in the written test and respondent No.6 secured 229 marks. She was topper in her category. There were two stages for the selection of candidates. The 1st stage comprised of written test and 2nd stage comprised of scrutiny of documents. The respondent acting in an unknown manner rejected those candidates who had secured Anju Goel 2024.05.30 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-13268-2024 better position. They approached this Court and Rajni-respodnent No.6 was one of them. This Court examined experience certificate of different candidates including Rajni and found that respondent has wrongly rejected her experience certificate. On being pointed out by this Court, the respondent corrected its mistake and issued appointment letter to respondent No.6.

3.

The petitioner is claiming that she at the time of adjudication of claim of respondent No.6-Rajni was not heard, thus, Rajni should be replaced by her and an appointment letter should be issued to her. 4.

The petitioner concededly has joined post of Information Technology Assistant (Software). She concededly secured 221 marks whereas respondent No.6 secured 229 marks. The sole ground of ignoring respondent No.6 was illegal rejection of her experience certificate. The respondent later on accepted her experience certificate. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with appointment of respondent No.6 especially when the petitioner has not pointed out in the writ petition that experience certificate furnished by respondent No.6 was forged or fabricated.

5.

Dismissed.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 30.05.2024 anju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Anju Goel 2024.05.30 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh