Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUMIT KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sumit Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors. - CWP-8920-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3206 (16 May 2006)

CWP No. 8920 of 2006 Page numbers

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

CWP No. 8920 of 2006

Date of Decision: 30.5.2006

Sumit Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others.

....Respondents.

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Patwalia

Present: Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate

for the petitioner.

...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

The petitioner responded to an advertisement issued on 22.2.2006, for appointment against the post of clerk. The application of the petitioner was under the handicapped category. In this behalf, it is pointed out, that the petitioner is 100% deaf from both ears.

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.3 who has been selected and appointed against the post of clerk under the handicapped category. In order to substantiate his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the petitioner acquired more marks at the matriculation, as well as, 10+2 level than respondent No.3. Additionally, it is pointed out, that the type-writing speed of the petitioner is substantially more than that of respondent No.3. It is, therefore submitted, that the CWP No. 8920 of 2006 Page numbers

petitioner is bound to have done better than respondent No.3 during the course of interview as well.

Having considered the matter in its totality, we are satisfied, that the inference drawn by the petitioner is clearly misconceived. Merely because the petitioner had scored more marks at the matriculation, as well as, 10+2 level, does not justify the inference, that he was bound to fair better than respondent No.3, during the course of interview, held for appointment to the post of clerk. Since the petitioner has not been able to substantiate, that the marks awarded to him during the course of interview, were more than those scored by respondent No.3, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was bound to have been selected for appointment as a matter of superiority over respondent No.3.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge.

( P.S. Patwalia )

Judge.

30.05.2006

sk.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.