IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1402 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.8.2010 Smt.Gargi … Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and others …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.Ravi Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. for respondents No.1 to 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The instant appeal by the un-successful writ petitioner- appellant filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is directed against judgment dated 25.8.2009 passed by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, after making reference to the pleadings, came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner/appellant had secured 39.50 marks out of 75 marks in General Category as against 44.78 marks of the last selected candidate in her category. Therefore, finding no merit, the petition was dismissed. 2. In order to appreciate the argument advanced before us, it would be necessary to notice the essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Accounts Assistance, in Haryana Urban Development Authority was as under:- “i) B.Com. with two years experience in Accounts in Government/Semi Government Organization. LPA No. 1402 of 2009 ii) B.Com. Ist Class with two years experience in Accounts in a reputed private organization. iii) Hindi upto Matric standard.” 3. Mr.Ravi Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant, has drawn our attention to the penultimate para of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and argued that a specific plea has been raised by the writ petitioner/appellant, asserting that respondent No.4 was an employee of Contractor and not that of Gymkhana Club. He has further argued that the learned Single Judge has rejected the said plea on a wrong premise holding that no such plea was raised by the writ-petitioner/ appellant, in the writ petition. In order to substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the averments made in the replication, wherein attention has been drawn to Annexures P-14 and P-15. An attempt has been made on the basis of Annexures P-14 and P-15 to submit that respondent No.4 was an employee of the Contractor and not that of Gymkhana Club. A certificate dated 19.9.2002 (Annexure P-4) which was issued to respondent No.4 by the Gymkhana Club, certify that he has been working on contract basis as Accounts Clerk since 8.3.1999 till the date of issuance of certificate except for 59 days whose wages/salary have not been paid by the Gymkhana Club. His work and conduct is satisfactory. Likewise, order dated 12.7.2002 (Annexure P-15) shows that her salary was raised to Rs.3700/- per month. On the basis of the aforesaid two documents, the aforesaid contention has been raised by the learned counsel. 2 LPA No. 1402 of 2009 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid two documents and to conclude that respondent No.4 can be regarded as employee of the Contractor and not that of Gymkhana Club. Furthermore, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has pointed out that she was employee of Gymkhana Club which is run by Haryana Urban Development Authority, and it is a part and parcel of the HUDA Department without any separate identity. Therefore, the experience gained by respondent No.4 answers the requirement of advertisement. The appeal is wholly without merit and is thus, liable to be dismsissed. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 20.08.2010 sd 3