It was also the case of the appellant that certain candidates, who had secured same marks as secured by the appellant, were given appointment whereas he was number appointed to the post in question.
Factually, the companyrt found that numbercandidate of general class, who had secured less marks than the appellant, was appointed as an Art and Craft teacher and, therefore, the petition had been rejected.
After hearing the learned companynsel and on perusal of record, the High Court rejected the petition by the Judgment dated 18th July, 2003.
In the impugned Judgment it has been observed that some backward class A category candidates had secured more marks than the cut off marks determined for the general category candidates and, therefore, on the basis of their merit, they had been given appointment and, therefore, it companyld number be said that the respondent Authorities had companymitted a mistake by giving appointment to backward class A category candidates against the posts of general category, especially when that was in accordance with the law.
ANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted.
Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 18th July, 2003 delivered in CWP No.14328 of 2000 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, the appellant has filed this appeal.
It was the case of the appellant that certain candidates belonging to backward class A category had been given appointment against the posts of general category and had it number been done so, the appellant would have got the appointment.
