Civil Writ Petition No. 8665 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 8665 of 2008
Date of decision: 17.7.2009
Manisha Nee Deepa ...petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sajjan Kumar Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana
for the State.
Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
****
RANJIT SINGH J.
This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8665
of 2008 and 338 of 2009.
Civil Writ Petition No. 8665 of 2008:
164 posts of Principal HES-II were advertised to
21.6.2007. Out of these 106 posts were meant for general category.
The petitioner, who belongs to general category, applied for
appointment to the post of Principal. Finding her eligible she was
called for interview. The result was declared on 30.1.2008. Last
candidate selected had scored 46.19 marks. The petitioner then
applied to know the marks obtained by her. She was apprised that
she had secured 44.53 marks. Counsel representing the petitioner,
Civil Writ Petition No. 8665 of 2008 2
by referring to the criteria, submits that the marks of the petitioner
has not been properly calculated.
In the reply filed, the respondents have disputed this
assertion made by the petitioner and would say that the petitioner
was rightly awarded 44.53 marks. Both the petitioner as well as the
respondents have carried out the calculation of the marks, which
ought to be awarded to the petitioner on the basis of criteria adopted.
There is no dispute between the parties about the criteria
for assessment which is to be adopted. Considering the contents of
the reply filed by the respondents , Court called for the record from
the Commission. The original application filed by the petitioner has
been perused, which reveals that the petitioner has disclosed her
educational qualification as M.A. as well as M.Sc. She is also B.Ed.
and had disclosed her experience to be 11 years. As per the
petitioner, she was entitled to 17.025 marks by taking into
consideration the marks obtained by her in M.Sc whereas the
respondents have calculated the marks of the petitioner on the basis
of her score in M.A.
By referring to the essential qualification prescribed in the
advertisement, counsel would submit that M.A and M.Sc both were
eligible for appointment to the post of Principal and to be fair to the
petitioner her assessment in that post graduate degree should be
taken into consideration which is more beneficial to her. To
substantiate this submission, counsel would say that the petitioner
could have made a reference to her M.Sc. degree alone and still she
would have been eligible for consideration and appointment by only
making assessment of the marks obtained in M.Sc The petitioner
Civil Writ Petition No. 8665 of 2008 3
was given zero marks in experience whereas she has clearly
mentioned that she had 11 years as experience. Even if the degree
of M.Sc is taken into consideration to consider the claim of the
petitioner, she would have more marks than the last candidates
selected who have secured 46.19 marks.
There is no dispute that the petitioner is having degrees
of M.A. as well M.Sc. The petitioner would be eligible for
consideration for the post on the basis of M.A. as well M.Sc. degree.
There is no justification for the respondents to consider the M.A.
degree of the petitioner to check her merit and ignore the M.Sc.
degree where her performance is better. Selection is on the basis of
merit and there should not be any reason to ignore the merit of a
candidate by ignoring marks of a degree to which mention is made in
the application.
The submission made by counsel has a substance when
he says that the petitioner even could have made mention to her
M.Sc degree alone and still would have been eligible for
consideration. This would clearly explain the infirmity in the stand of
the respondents in calculating the merit of the petitioner on the basis
of M.A degree. The case of the petitioner thus was not fairly
considered and would call for fresh consideration by calculating the
merit on the basis of M.Sc degree. Respondents, accordingly, are
directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and calculate
her marks properly. Her marks for educational qualification be
calculated on the basis of her performance in M.Sc. Respondents
would also see, if the petitioner is required to be awarded marks for
her experience.
Civil Writ Petition No. 8665 of 2008 4
Civil Writ Petition No. 338 of 2009:
The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 338 of 2009 had to
his credit M.Sc degree in Mathematics and M.A in History. If M.Sc
degree in Mathematics is taken into consideration, he would be
entitled to get 17.19 marks whereas degree of M.A History has been
taken into consideration to award him less marks. For the same
reasons as aforementioned, the case of the petitioner in CWP NO.
338 is also required to be reconsidered by taking into consideration
his marks obtained in M.Sc. (Maths).
The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with
direction to the respondents to reconsider and recalculate the merit
of the petitioners in these petitions as per the direction
aforementioned. The respondents shall then consider the claim of the
petitioners for appointment from the date the candidate lower in
merits than the petitioners were selected and appointed. In case, the
petitioners come within the zone of selection, they would be offered
appointments.
Let original record be returned by the Registry to the
State counsel on an proper application made.
July 17, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE