Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 527 (PNJ)

Gomti v. State of Haryana

2024-03-04

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

body2024
JUDGMENT Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been selected for the post of Pharmacist despite the fact that the petitioner who was competing in BC-A category had secured 63 marks in the written examination for the post in question and was entitled for 5 marks under Socio Economic Economic Criteria and 2.5 marks under the experience category. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once, it has come on record that the last candidate selected in the BC-A category has secured 67 marks, hence, the petitioner is entitled for the appointment qua the post as the petitioner secured more marks than the last candidate who is selected in BC-A category. 3. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply wherein they have stated that keeping in view the number of the posts advertised dated 07.09.2019 (Annexure P-4), the candidates have been selected only on the basis of the marks secured by them in the written examination and only the shortlisted candidates become eligible for the grant of the marks for the experience and as ell under Socio Economic Criteria. In the present case, the last candidate shortlisted in the category of BC-A has secured 67 marks whereas the petitioner has secured 63 marks in the written examination, hence, the petitioner can not raise any grievance for not being selected on the post in question. In order to justify their claim, the respondents relies upon the resolution dated 23.11.2018 to support that the shortlisting of the candidates is to be done only on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the written examination not by adding the marks under Socio Economic Criteria or the experience as the case may be. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case record with their able assistance. 5. The criteria which is fixed by the respondents has been made applicable upon all the candidates uniformly. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case record with their able assistance. 5. The criteria which is fixed by the respondents has been made applicable upon all the candidates uniformly. Once, the respondents contend that prior to the selection process, a decision has already been taken that the shortlisting of the candidates for the post in question will only be done on the marks secured by them in the written examination, claim of the petitioner that the marks of Socio Economic Criteria as well as experience should also be added before shortlisting the candidates cannot be accepted. 6. The selection process once, initiated has already been completed. That being the factual position, and there is not deviation from the criteria which has been formed by the respondents to evaluate each candidate during selection process, no interference is called for by this Court especially when that none of candidate, who was also entitled for the marks under Socio Economic Criteria or experience has been granted the same at the time of shortlisting of the candidates qua the post in question and the shortlisting of the candidates has been done only on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case recorded herein above, no ground is made out for the grant of any relief to the petitioner as being claimed by him through present petition, hence, the present petition stands dismissed. 8. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.