Sukh Harman Preet Singh v. Guru Nanak Dev University Amritsar And Others
!"#$!%&'&"()* + *+
) , -+. . -
!
"
# !
" $ !
"
%
&
!
"
' () $ !
* !
"
+ ,,,,,
.-/+
0 1 -
*
is praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the result dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure P-6) and also any appointment letter issued in pursuance of Annexure P-6.
2.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondentUniversity invited online applications for various Teaching and NonTeaching posts in the University (Annexure P-1). The petitioner fulfilling the conditions mentioned in the advertisement applied for consideration for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). -1-
There were two posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) advertised in the abovementioned advertisement. The written examination for the purpose of selection was held on 21.05.2022. The petitioner duly appeared in the written examination and qualified the same. The result of the written examination was declared by the University. After the declaration of written examination (Annexure P-4), practical test was also conducted for the qualified candidates. The petitioner duly participated in the practical test conducted by the University. Upon completion of the practical test, final result was declared by the University on 03.10.2023 (Annexure P-6). In the final result dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure P-6), name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No.3 in the merit list; whereas name of respondent No.5 figures at Sr. No.1 and the name of respondent No.4 figures at Sr. No.2. Aggrieved against the abovesaid result dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure P-6) declared by the respondent-University, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the same.
3.
The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.4 has been awarded higher marks in practical test to facilitate his appointment as the Chairman of the Selection Committee was working in Civil Engineering Department in the University as an Assistant Professor along with respondent No.4. Learned counsel further submits that fixing 30 marks for practical test is excessive.
4.
Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that there is no evidence or material led by the petitioner to show that -2-
respondent No.4 was awarded higher marks in practical test to facilitate appointment to respondent No.4. It is also the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent-University that 30 marks fixed for the practical cannot be held to be excessive. 5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper-book along with records.
6.
- !
./
! /"
' * *
!
!/
. # " / !
#
#
*"
*!
'** ! !
/
!
.
/
.
*
'**
!
!/
.
0" "
(/
// *
!
/ /./ .
) !
-
!
./
! /"
01 "2
. " !
!/
2!
! !
.
. !
"/
! / "
!
.
!!
" !
!/ *! * "2
. * .
!
!
. !
!
!/
3
!
456#/7
"
!
!
.
/ 01 "2
. "
!
!/
2!
8 - *" . # "
*
-3-
8.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
* + *+
.- 9
:
;
9
./ ;
-4-