IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 1140 CWP-11509 Rakesh Kumar CWP-11511 Gurpreet Singh vs. CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. disposed of together CWP-11509 2. Science (Information Technology) and experience which were reduced curtailing the merit 3. also the advertisement, to state that marks be for acquiring the degree of last selected candidate in general category for the post of in District Amritsar, was not in zone of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 11509-2008 (O & M) Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Others 11511-2008 Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Shivam Kapila, Advocate for Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioners in both the petitions Mr. Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for Ms. Dhamnpreet Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together and for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from 11509-2008. Learned counsel submits that Science (Information Technology) and experience which were reduced curtailing the merit, ought to have been granted to the petitioner. Learned State counsel refers to the counter affidavit filed, as also the advertisement, to state that marks for acquiring the degree of M.A/M.Sc./M.Com/M.Ed. and last selected candidate in general category for the post of in District Amritsar, secured 56.54 points while the petitioner t in zone of selection. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.05.2025 nd Others nd Others BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Shivam Kapila, Advocate for s in both the petitions. Mr. Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for Ms. Dhamnpreet Kaur, Advocate, These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being and for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from Learned counsel submits that the marks for Masters of Science (Information Technology) and experience which were reduced , ought to have been granted to the petitioner. Learned State counsel refers to the counter affidavit filed, as also the advertisement, to state that marks for higher qualification had to M.A/M.Sc./M.Com/M.Ed. and since the last selected candidate in general category for the post of Teaching Fellow 56.54 points while the petitioner 50.852, he PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-11509-2008 and CWP-11511-2008 -2- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to controvert the above despite his best efforts and the terms and conditions of the advertisement being sacrosanct, the claim as raised in the petition is untenable. 5. Petitions stand dismissed. 6. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. 19.05.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.