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
