Smt. Gargi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 August, 2009

Last Updated on

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Gargi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 August, 2009
Civil Writ Petition No.5886 of 2009                              -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                               Civil Writ Petition No.5886 of 2009
                                Decided on : 25-08-2009


Smt. Gargi
                                                       .... Petitioner

                        VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

                                                     .... Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL.

Present:- Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate, and
Mr. Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Ms. Kirti Singh, A.A.G. Haryana,
for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate, for
Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.

Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.

None for respondent No.5.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral).

The petitioner, who is one of the unsuccessful candidate

for the appointment on the post of Accounts Assistant in HUDA, has

filed the instant petition challenging the selection of respondent

No.4 on the said post. It is the case of the petitioner that as per

advertisement dated 22.3.2007 (Annexure P-1), the essential
Civil Writ Petition No.5886 of 2009 -2-

qualification prescribed for the said post is as under:-

                  i)     B.Com.     with   two   years     experience     in

                  Accounts     in   Government/     Semi     Government

                  Organization

                  ii)    B.Com. Ist Class with two years experience

in Accounts in a reputed private organization.

iii) Hindi upto Matric standard.

It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that

respondent No.4 was not possessing the requisite qualification and

experience for the said post, he was selected. The selection of

respondent No.4 has also been challenged on the ground that he

was less meritorious than the petitioner.

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent

No.3, it has been stated that respondent No.4 possesses the

qualification of B.Com. with 46.1% marks and M.Com. with 53.5%

marks and experience as Accounts clerk from Gymkhana Club,

Rohtak from March, 1999 to 31.1.2003. It has been stated that the

experience from Gymkhana Club, which is a Semi Government

Organization, was to be taken as the requisite experience.

Regarding respondent No.5 , it has been stated that she was kept in

the waiting list, but she also possesses the qualification of B.Com.

with 56.4% marks and M.Com. with 61.45 marks and the required

experience from the office of the Official Liquidator, Ministry of

Company Affairs, Sector 26, Chandigarh. Thus, both these

candidates were fully eligible, therefore, they were called for
Civil Writ Petition No.5886 of 2009 -3-

interview and in order of merits, respondent No.4 was selected and

respondent No.5 was kept in the waiting list by the respondent-

Commission.

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent

No.4, it has been stated that the answering respondent possesses

the B.Com. Degree and has the experience from Gymkhana Club,

therefore, he was fully eligible for the appointment on the said post.

Regarding the petitioner, it has been submitted that though she was

not eligible as she was not possessing the experience in Accounts,

but she was called for interview. In this regard, it is stated that she

was working as Beldar. Her experience of Account Assistant from

18.8.1992 to 31.3.1993 was not sufficient to make her eligible for

the said post.

After hearing counsel for the parties, I do not find any

merit in the instant petition. The averments made in the written

statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4 have not been

controverted. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent

No.4 was not an employee of the Gymkhana Club, rather she was

an employee of a contractor. No such plea has been taken by the

petitioner in the writ petition. In the written statement of respondent

No.4, it has been categorically stated that respondent No.4 has

possessed 4 years’ experience as Accounts Clerk in the Gymkhana

Club and on the basis of experience certificate, he was considered

eligible and selected for the post. In view of the said factual

position, it cannot be said that respondent No.4 was not eligible for
Civil Writ Petition No.5886 of 2009 -4-

the said post and he was wrongly selected being unqualified. As far

as the merit position is concerned, it has been stated that the

petitioner has secured 39.50 marks out of 75 marks in General

Category as against 44.78 marks of the last selected candidate in

her category. The counsel for the petitioner could not point out that

how she was more meritorious than the selected candidates.

Hence, there is no merit in the petition.

Dismissed.

25th August, 2009. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
Monika JUDGE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *