LPA-1394-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 128 LPA-1394-2025 Date of decision : 09.09.2025 Gobind ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present:- Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Senior DAG, Punjab. *** Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the Single Bench on 24.04.2025 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking his appointment as Executive Officer Class-I has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had secured 48 marks which was more than the marks obtained by private respondents No.3 & 4, therefore, he ought to have been offered appointment. The result had been declared after 09 years of the examination and therefore, the appellant ought to have been informed personally about the verification of documents either by notice, e-mail etc. but no intimation was sent to the appellant. 3. Heard. SONIA GUGNANI 2025.09.12 10.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA-1394-2025 -2- 4. The appellant is stated to have participated in the selection process for the post of Executive Officer Class-I in pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure P-1). The appellant and the private respondents had applied against the Scheduled Caste (M&B) category. The appellant had secured 48 marks while the private respondents No.3 & 4 had secured 41 and 36.25 marks respectively. The examination had been conducted in the year 2015. The respondents had issued a public notice on 14.11.2024 (Annexure P- 6) inviting the successful candidates for verification of documents. Two other notices were issued on 27.11.2024 and 10.12.2024 (Annexures P-8 & P-9 respectively), but the appellant did not appear before the respondents for verification of documents. The respondents after scrutinizing the documents of the eligible candidates had prepared the selection list and private respondents No.3 & 4 were selected. We do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the appellant ought to have been served a notice individually for the reason that the public notice had been issued on 03 occasions. The petitioner ought to have been vigilant and appeared before the respondents for verification of documents and the consequent appointment. There is no requirement for issuing notice through mobile message or e-mail. 5. In response to a query of this Court as to whether any post is vacant against which the appellant could be accommodated, learned State counsel submits that all the posts have been filled up and there is no vacant post. SONIA GUGNANI 2025.09.12 10.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA-1394-2025 -3- 6. In view of the aforenoted facts and circumstances, we do not find any manifest illegality in the judgment of the Single Bench dismissing the writ petition. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE September 09, 2025 sonia gugnani Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2025.09.12 10.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh