IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 1860 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : 19.05.2009
Rajesh Kumar
.... PETITIONER
Versus
State of Haryana and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Lamba, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner, who is a practising Advocate at Civil Courts,
Mohindergarh, has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the
respondents to call him for interview for the post of Manager (Legal),
advertised by respondent No.2 – Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited, vide advertisement Annexure P-1.
In this case, in the month of September, 2008, vide
advertisement Annexure P-1, four posts of Manager (Legal) were
advertised, out of which two posts were reserved for the Scheduled Caste
CWP No. 1860 of 2009 -2-
category, one post each was reserved for the Backward Class and Ex-
Serviceman. For these posts, the following qualification and experience
were required :-
“Graduate (2nd Division) LL.B. Professional (2nd Division) with
at least 2 years relevant post qualification experience in
Government/Commercial Organisations/Financial Institutions/
Banks in drafting of deeds/agreements/terms/conditions/
examinations of legal documents and pursuing of legal cases”
The petitioner considering himself fully eligible for the aforesaid post
applied to respondent No.2 with certificates of requisite qualification in
Category of Backward Class and Ex-Serviceman, before the last date.
It is the case of the petitioner that he possesses the requisite
qualification and experience for the post of Manager (Legal), but he has not
been illegally called for the interview. He is M.A. in English and is having
LL.B. (Professional) Degree with 57% marks. With his application and with
the petition, the petitioner has annexed the Certificate (Annexure P-2),
issued by the President, Bar Association, Mohindergarh, certifying that the
petitioner is practising as Advocate at Civil Courts, Mohindergarh, for more
than three years and he is having working knowledge of drafting and
examination of deeds, agreements and documents, of pursuing legal cases in
Courts as well as in Tribunals. The petitioner has also annexed another
Certificate (Annexure P-3), issued by the President of the Legal Awareness
and Welfare Society, certifying that the petitioner is working as Vice-
CWP No. 1860 of 2009 -3-
President of the Society for more than two years and he has active and
dynamic role in the legal awareness among the general masses, anti-
corruption campaigns and in the eradication of various other associated
legal problems. The petitioner has also annexed a Certificate (Annexure P-
4), issued by Sharma and Singh Associates, Advocates, Civil Courts,
Mohindergarh, certifying that the petitioner is a partner in that Association
for more than four years and has the working experience of drafting,
pleadings, conveyance, examination and searching of legal documents,
matters relating to finance, hypothecation, banking and has exposure in the
legal matters in the Civil Court, Criminal Court, Revenue Court and other
Tribunals and Lok Adalats. On the basis of these Certificates, the petitioner
claims himself to be fully eligible as having requisite experience for the
aforesaid post, but he was not called by the respondents for interview,
without any justification and reason. It is also averred in the petition that
requiring the experience in Government/Commercial
Organisations/Financial Institutions/Banks in drafting deeds and agreements
etc. is also unconstitutional, as an Advocate, who possesses similar
experience, while practising in the Court of law has been excluded
arbitrarily.
In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it
has been stated that 33 applications were received for the aforesaid posts,
out of which 9 candidates were shortlisted on the basis of the qualification
and experience, prescribed for the post. Since the petitioner was found not
CWP No. 1860 of 2009 -4-
having the requisite experience, therefore, he was not considered eligible to
be called for interview. Regarding the unconstitutionality of the requisite
experience, it has been stated that the employer is the best judge of his
requirement. It is further averred that the experience required for the post in
question cannot be said to be arbitrary and unconstitutional or violative of
the right to equality in the matter of employment, as enshrined under Article
16 of the Constitution of India.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the
parties. In my opinion, respondent No.2 has rightly found the petitioner not
possessing the requisite experience for appointment on the said post. The
petitioner does not have 2 years requisite experience in
Government/Commercial Organisations/Financial Institutions/Banks in
drafting of deeds/agreements/terms/conditions/examinations of legal
documents etc. He is only a practising Advocate and the experience
certificate, annexed with the petition, which was alleged to have been
annexed with the application also, does not relate to the Government/
Commercial Organisations or Financial Institutions/Banks. As a practising
Advocate, he may have the experience of drafting the deeds, agreements and
perusing the legal cases, but the required experience for the post in question
is from the Government/ Commercial Organisations/Financial
Institutions/Banks. It is for the employer to lay down the experience and
qualification for a particular post. Merely because respondent No.2
Corporation, which is a Commercial/ Financial Organisation, requires a
CWP No. 1860 of 2009 -5-
particular type of experience, it cannot be said that the said requirement is
arbitrary and unconstitutional. The experience of a practising Advocate is
entirely different from the experience of a Law Graduate working in the
Government/Commercial Organisations/ Financial Institutions/Banks. It is
the prerogative of the employer to require a person possessing particular
qualification and experience. There is no allegation in the present writ
petition that respondent No.2 Corporation has laid down the required
qualification and experience with malafide intention or with oblique motive
to favour a particular person. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the
action of respondent No.2 Corporation in not calling the petitioner for
interview for appointment on the said post.
In the instant petition, the petitioner has also annexed an
experience certificate (Annexure P-5), submitted by Shri Vijayveer Singh,
one of the selected candidates. It was issued by Chinar Syntex Ltd.,
Bhiwani, concededly a Commercial Organisation, to the effect that the said
candidate has worked with the Company for more than two years as a Law
Officer-cum-Personal Manager. The said experience certificate given by
Shri Vijayveer Singh was rightly accepted, being an experience from a
Commercial Organisation.
Thus, I do not find any merit in the instant petition and the
same is, hereby, dismissed.
May 19, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE