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