Balwinder Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioners had applied for the post of Forest Guard in pursuance to an advertisement dated 22.09.2011 issued by the respondent-department. They had earlier approached this Court in terms of filing CWP No. 8501 of 2012 and the same had been disposed of vide order dated 08.05.2012 (Annexure P-7) directing the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 13.02.2011. The instant writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the Secretary, Subordinate Selection Board Punjab at Annexure P-8, whereby a speaking order has been passed in purported compliance of order dated 08.05.2012 passed by this Court in CWP No. 8501 of 2012.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would strenuously argue that such speaking order has been passed confining consideration only as regards petitioner No. 1 and the claim pertaining to petitioners No. 2 & 3 has not even been considered in such impugned order. That apart, counsel would argue that candidates, who were only matriculate have been selected, whereas the petitioners possessed higher qualification in the nature of senior secondary.

Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length, I find that the present writ petition deserves dismissal insofar as petitioner No. 1 is concerned. Counsel has not been able to rebut the factual position contained in the impugned order, wherein it has been noticed that the last candidate in the Ex Army Person Self (General) Category, who had been called for the physical test/walk test/counselling had secured 65.3% marks whereas the merit of petitioner No. 1 has been determined at 42%. Still further, a perusal of the legal notice itself dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P-4) which had been submitted by the petitioners would reveal that matriculation was infact a basic essential qualification. Accordingly, merely on account of the fact that petitioner No. 1 possesses the qualification of senior secondary would not be a basis to interfere with the selection of a candidate, who possesses a lower qualification but yet the basic essential qualification prescribed under the advertisement. As such, insofar as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, there is no merit in the claim and the writ petition qua him stands dismissed.

However, it is noticed that in the impugned order dated 30.07.2012, the claim of the other two petitioners i.e. petitioner No. 2 namely Avtar Singh and petitioner No. 3 namely Dev Singh has not been considered. Accordingly, while dismissing of the present writ petition, liberty is granted to petitioners No. 2 & 3 to pursue their grievance and claim in the light of the order dated 08.05.2012 already passed by this Court in CWP No. 8501 of 2012. Disposed of.