CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10392 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 22, 2009 Deepa Rani .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Applications for appointment on various posts of Junior Mistresses, including 16 posts of Junior Mistress (Women) Hair and Skin Care on Deputy Commissioner rate/contract basis were invited. The necessary eligibility and qualifications were mentioned in the advertisement so issued in this regard. The petitioner made an application for appointment to the post of Junior Mistress (Women) Hair and Skin Care. The necessary qualifications for this, as per the advertisement, were as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10392 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: under:- “i. National trade certificate in concerned trade. ii. Craft Training Instructor course certificate in concerned trade/Teacher Training Certificate. iii.5 years practical/teaching experience including the prescribed period mentioned above for Serial No.1 and 2 from recognized Industrial Organization. iv.Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric standard.” The petitioner was interviewed on 19.11.2007 and was appointed, whereafter she joined at Faridabad on 22.11.2007. The petitioner subsequently filed Civil Writ Petition No.1281 of 2008, challenging the action of the respondents for limiting this appointment for a period of six months. The State Government thereafter gave an undertaking that the respondents will allow the petitioner to continue till regular appointee persons were available. Subsequently, the petitioner has been relieved on 20.5.2008 on the ground that she has passed the examination under SCBT Scheme, which is not as per the Government Rules. Claiming that she possesses the valid qualifications, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. In the reply filed, reference is made to the qualifications and experience for appointment to the said post as given in the Rules. In order to justify their action, the respondents would point out that the petitioner is not possessing the National Trade Certificate in the concerned trade as the Annexure P-4 relied upon by the petitioner in support of her qualification is issued by the State Council for Vocational Training, Delhi and is a State Training Certificate and not a National Trade Certificate. It is further stated that the petitioner also does not possess the Craft Training Instructor certificate in the concerned trade. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would refer to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10392 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: Annexure P-5, which is a certificate issued by the National Council for Vocational Training, certifying that she has completed an advance course in Hair and Skin Care at National Vocational Training Institute for Women, Noida. This, according to the petitioner, would satisfy the condition of National Trade Certificate in the concerned trade. Counsel would then refer to Annexure P-6 to show that she has completed a course of Craft Instructor at National Vocational Training Institute for Women. Mr.Rathee, however, will dispute and would point out that this Craft Training Instructor Course certificate has to be in the concerned trade i.e. Hair and Skin Care, which the certificate does not indicate. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would contend that this certificate would suffice and then would refer to the fact that she was required to have either Craft Training Instructor Course Training Certificate or Teacher Training Certificate in the concerned trade. As per counsel for the petitioner, concerned trade would relate to Teacher Training Certificate and not the Craft Training Instructor Course Certificate. From the reply filed by the State in the form of additional affidavit, it is seen that while considering the qualifications of the petitioner, no reference is made to Annexure P-5 to see if this will meet the requirement of National Trade certificate in the concerned trade or not. Annexure P-5 rather is being considered for second qualification, which is Craft Training Instructor Course Certificate. Apparently, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner as regards her qualifications in a fair and proper manner. Let the respondents re-consider the entire case from the angle of qualifications possessed by the petitioner. They would specifically see if certificates, Annexures P-5 and P-6 would meet the requirement of qualifications as given in the Rules. They would also specifically determine if the Craft Training Instructor Course Certificate is required in the concerned trade or these words “concerned trade” are only relating to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10392 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: Teacher Training Certificate. For this purpose, the case will go back to the respondents with a direction to them to re-consider the same afresh and decide the same by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. October 22, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE