Daljit Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh And ORS.

CWP-9151-2017 -1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9151-2017 Date of Decision: May 01, 2017 Daljit Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

Union Territory and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.Onkar Rai, Advocate for the petitioner.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

The petitioner was a candidate for recruitment to the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police. He qualified the written test held on 17.02.2015 and was required to appear for interview. The petitioner's case is that he did not receive any call for interview though as per his merit he ought to have been considered by the Selection Committee. The petitioner allegedly came to know only when selection result was declared and candidates were appointed. Thereafter he verified and came to know that candidates lower in merit were called for interview and he was not considered.

[2] The respondents filed their written statement before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, refuting the Meenu 2017.05.10 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CWP-9151-2017 -2petitioner's claim. It was explained that there were 256 candidates who had qualified the written test and all of them were sent letters through ordinary post by using stamps of Rs.5/- through Franking Machine. The petitioner was also amongst the candidates to whom such letter was sent. Not only this, the result was uploaded on the website of the Chandigarh Police and candidates short-listed for interview were invited through that process as well.

[3] Still further, the result was published in three daily newspapers including 'The Tribune' (English) on 08.03.2015, 'Dainik Bhaskar' on 06.03.2015 and in 'Amar Ujala' on 08.03.2015. In all these publications the petitioner's roll number '201540' was clearly mentioned. The petitioner, however, did not bother to appear for interview due to which his candidature could not be considered.

[4] In the light of the above noticed glaring facts, no case to interfere with order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh is made out.

[5] Dismissed.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE May 01, 2017 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2017.05.10 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh