Arvind v. State Of Haryana & ORS.

CWP No. 9365-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No 9365 of 2017 Date of decision : 14.01.2020 Arvind ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and ors.

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Vikram Singh Rao, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) Petitioner is seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to permit him to appear in the interview for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), especially keeping in view the fact that in reference to result (P-4), no public notice was published in any of the daily newspaper. On notice of the petition, a short reply has been filed on behalf of the Commission-respondent No. 4 admitting that the petitioner applied for the above post and was issued Roll No. 50005671. The result of written examination was declared on 10.11.2016 in which the name and roll no of the petitioner was not mentioned but in notice dated 26.11.2016, the roll number of the petitioner was mentioned. However, it has further been submitted that in compliance of order dated 15.11.2016 passed in CWP No.

22746-2016, a notice dated 26.12.2016 has been issued, vide which the Commission has decided to call the candidates equal to four time the number of advertised vacancies. This notice was uploaded on the website and the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the notice. In this GAURAV ARORA 2020.05.

CWP No. 9365-2017 notice, it was clearly mentioned that after scrutiny of documents if candidate is found eligible it will not confer any right of interview and candidates only falling within twice the number of vacancies above shall be called for interview. This notice dated 26.11.2016 was also published in the newspaper "The Tribune" on 29.11.2016. Despite this the petitioner remained absent on 02.12.2016 (R-4/1). Respondent-Commission again issued notice dated 26.12.2016 for the candidates who were absent on 02.12.2016. This notice dated 26.12.2016 (R-4/2) was also uploaded on the website of the Commission but petitioner did not appear. Till date, petitioner has not filed any replication to the reply filed by the Commission.

Keeping in view the fact that the final result has been declared way back on 16.02.2017, the present writ petition is dismissed. January 14, 2020 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No GAURAV ARORA 2020.05.21 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh