IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: July 07, 2009
1. Civil Writ Petition No.17187 of 2007
Santosh
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
2. Civil Writ Petition No.17167 of 2007
Suman
…..PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
…..RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: – Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy
Advocate General, Punjab, for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, for
respondent No.5 (in CWP No.17167
of 2007).
Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.7 and 23 (in
CWP No.17187 of 2007).
None for the remaining
respondents.
. . .
CWP No.17187 of 2007 [2]
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This order shall dispose of two
petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition No.17187 of
2007 titled `Santosh vs. State of Punjab &
Others’ and Civil Writ Petition No.17167 of 2007
titled ‘Suman Lata vs. State of Punjab & Others’
as they involve similar questions of law and
facts.
For reference, Civil Writ Petition
No.17187 of 2007 is taken up.
Santosh wife of Surjit Kumar has
approached this Court by way of filing this civil
writ petition under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a
writ in the nature of certiorari quashing
selection (Annexure P-8) for the post of Cutting,
Tailoring and Embroidery Instructor. Prayer has
also been made for issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents to
consider the candidature of the petitioner for
the said post while considering her experience
with the Government Polytechnic College, Mohali.
Detailed facts need not be noticed
in so much as the only issue raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner is that in response to
the Advertisement (Annexure P-5), the petitioner
CWP No.17187 of 2007 [3]
furnished all the required documents. It has not
been disputed by learned counsel for the
respondents that the petitioner is having the
relevant qualification. The only dispute raised,
as per the admitted case, is in regard to
experience of the petitioner which was a
condition given out in the Advertisement itself.
So as to cut short the issue, relevant portion of
Advertisement (Annexure P-5) reads as under:-
“iii) Should possess atleast two years practical
experience in an organization registered under the
Factories Act 1948 or atleast two years teaching
experience in the line in a Government Institution or an
Institution recognized by the Government.”
The case of the petitioner is that
in view of the latter part of the above extracted
portion, the petitioner furnished Certificate
dated 24.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) which completely
satisfies the condition of eligibility for the
said post.
The case of the respondents to the
contrary is that the certificate (Annexure P-4)
is wholly inadequate as it does not disclose the
number of days served in a week by the petitioner
or number of hours served by the petitioner in a
day. In this view of the matter, it is the
contention of learned counsel for the respondent-
State that stand of the respondents in rejecting
the candidature of the petitioner cannot be
CWP No.17187 of 2007 [4]
faulted with.
I have considered the contentions
of learned counsel.
Other than the extracted portion
above, Para 10 of the Advertisement is also
relevant to be considered which reads as under:-
“10. Pay must be mentioned in the experience certificate,
without pay experience will not be accounted for.
Experience certificate issued by any private firm/concern
must be verified by the shop/labour Inspector of the area
concerned. Experience Certificate issued by private or
recognized/affiliated educational institutions must be
verified by the concerned District level officer.”
It transpires that the respondents
had made it clear that pay must be mentioned in
the experience certificate and without pay,
experience would not be accounted for.
Certificate (Annexure P-4) furnished by the petitioner disclosed the following:-
“This is to certify that Ms.Santosh W/o Surjit Kumar
resident of House No.376, Ward No.10, Near Khera,
Morinda, Distt. Ropar is working as Instructor (Cutting
and Tailouring) in Community Polytechnic Wing of this
Institution from 13.7.2000 to 26.4.2001 and 1.9.01 to till
date on hourly basis (Rs.15/- per hour).”
The Certificate only mentions
remuneration paid to the petitioner per hour. It
does not disclose as to how many hours a day the
petitioner worked and the exact remuneration paid
to the petitioner, per month.
The condition imposed in regard to
the practical experience requires two years
CWP No.17187 of 2007 [5]
teaching experience in the line in a Government
Institution or an Institution recognised by the
Government. The Certificate, Annexure P-4, might
disclose that petitioner served for two years but
it does not disclose as for how many days in a
week the petitioner worked or for how many hours
each day the petitioner served. If the petitioner
had been working only 2-3 hours a day and
infrequently, surely she did not fulfil the
required experience criteria. The Certificate is
inadequate in relevant contents. It does not
disclose the practical experience of the
petitioner. Practical experience is a relevant
criteria for giving employment on the post.
Certificate (Annexure P-4) does not detail the
work experience as required. In view of the
above, the argument addressed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that Certificate,
Annexure P-4, satisfies the conditions laid in
the Advertisement, cannot be accepted.
In Civil Writ Petition No.17167 of
2007, the certificate furnished by the petitioner
has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. The
certificate does not even give out the
remuneration paid to the petitioner on hourly
basis and therefore, is even more sketchy. In my
considered opinion, it does not satisfy the
CWP No.17187 of 2007 [6]
condition contained in Para 10 of the
Advertisement read in conjunction with sub-para
iii) that has been extracted above in earlier
part of the order.
In view of the above, I do not find
any ground to interfere with the action of the
respondents.
The petitions are dismissed.
(AJAI LAMBA)
July 07, 2009 JUDGE
avin