L.P.A. No. 990 of 2009 (O&M) (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No. 990 of 2009 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 07.10.2009
Union of India through the Central Forensic ..........Appellants
Science Laboratory & Anr.
Versus
Bhanu Pratap Singh ..........Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mrs. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
ORDER
1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single
Judge directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for
the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade II (Ballistic) in response to the
advertisement (Annexure P-1).
2. The respondent was working as Junior Scientific Officer
(Ballistic) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory. Post of Senior Scientific
Officer Grade II (Ballistic) was advertised. The respondent applied for the
same. He did not receive interview call though he was eligible. He filed
writ petition seeking direction for issuance of interview call letter. On
13.2.2009, while issuing notice, interim order was granted that the
respondent be considered in the interview process, provisionally.
3. The appellants contested the writ petition by submitting that
the respondent was not called for interview as his application was
L.P.A. No. 990 of 2009 (O&M) (2)
incomplete. He had left column No. 10 (B) in Part I of the application blank.
4. Learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the respondent that
the relevant information had been furnished against column 10 (A) and
thus keeping column10 (B) blank was of no consequence. Accordingly, the
result of provisional interview was ascertained. Since it was found that the
respondent had been duly selected, direction to consider the respondent
on merits was issued.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
6. Only contention which has been put forward is that since the
application of the respondent was incomplete, he was not eligible to be
considered for the interview.
7. We are unable to accept this submission. Learned Single
Judge has recorded the following finding:-
“Under Column 10 (A), the petitioner has clearly
indicated that he possessed relevant experience for the
post although the number of years, months and days
was not given. On the second page of the form,
however, where detailed particulars were required to be
given in column 8, the details have been given which
indicates experience of more than 11 years. An
annexure detailing the experience was also appended
therewith. The petitioner is a technocrat being M.Sc. in
Physics and therefore, seems to have been filled in
column 10 (B) because all the relevant details were
given at page 2 in column 8 which requires the applicant
to give details of employment in chronologic order. Even
an annexure has been appended giving out the details
of experience gained by the petitioner.
Under the circumstances the respondents, on
L.P.A. No. 990 of 2009 (O&M) (3)
perusal of the form and accompanying material, could
not have concluded that the petitioner lacked
experience.”
8. Above finding has not been shown to be erroneous. Thus, the
contention raised is hyper-technical. No ground is made out to interfere
with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
9. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
October 07, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
pooja JUDGE
Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter …….Yes/No