IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7427 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 27, 2010. Simarjit Kaur .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 & 2 only at this stage. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on their behalf. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.3 nor there is any need to seek counter-reply from respondent Nos.1 & 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the selection list dated 25.12.2009 (Annexure P-12) for the post of English Teachers wherein the name of respondent No.3 has also been included. The petitioner's grievance is two-fold. Firstly, she relies upon the experience certificate dated 10.9.2007 (Annexure P-8) and contends that she is entitled to be awarded marks for her experience. Secondly and as an alternative plea, it is urged that even if the experience certificate C.W.P.No .7427 of 2010 2 relied upon by her is over-looked, she is still higher in rank than the private respondent in their inter-se merit. Adverting to the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, I do not find any merit in it. The `experience certificate' relied upon by the petitioner is not counter-signed by the Prescribed Authority in terms of the advertisement/eligibility criteria, therefore, no reliance on the same can be placed. The verification made on it by the Incharge Officer of the Punjab School Education Board does not certify that the petitioner actually worked in that School. The petitioner has, thus, been rightly not awarded any marks/weightage for the `experience'. So far as the petitioner's second contention that she would still higher in merit than the private respondent even if no marks are awarded to her for the experience, I am of the considered view that this factual aspect deserves to be considered by the Competent Authority. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take an appropriate decision on the alternative plea raised by the petitioner, by passing a speaking order, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. April 27, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE