Civil Writ Petition No. 22161 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 22161 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.07.2011 Manjeet Singh ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. 38 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspectors were advertised on 11.02.2009. The last date of submission of the application form was 10.03.2009. Thereafter, the respondents issued corrigendum on 01.07.2009 adding one post for orthopaedically handicapped person. Last date of submission of application was extended upto 15.07.2009. The petitioner applied for the post as he was having 3 years diploma in Automobile Engineering from the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana. The essential qualification required for the post is under:- i) Diploma in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering (3 years course) awarded by a State Board of Technical Education. ii) Working experience of at least 1 year in an Automobile or Mechanical or field concerned workshop which Civil Writ Petition No. 22161 of 2010 undertakes repairs of both Light Motor Vehicle, Heavy Motor Vehicle. iii)Must hold a Driving license authorising him to drive Motorcycle, Light Motor Vehicle and transport vehicle i.e. Heavy Motor Vehicles (Goods/Passengers). iv)Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard. Though the petitioner had acquired diploma on 07.11.2008 but was not considered eligible on the ground that he did not have one year experience, which was also the essential qualification. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed this writ petition and would plead that he had appeared in the final sixth semester examination in May/June, 2006, result of which was declared by the Board later as he was having supplementary in his first and second semester papers. The petitioner had appeared in the supplementary papers of first and second semester in May/June, 2008 and cleared all the papers. In this background, the petitioner prays that his experience be counted from May/June, 2006 or at any rate from the date when he appeared in the first and second semester examination in May/June 2009. The counsel contends that if this course is adopted then the petitioner would have one year experience as prescribed in the advertisement. The State counsel, however, opposes this prayer and contends that the requirement of diploma and of working experience are co-related and any experience, which can be validly taken into consideration, would be from the date of acquiring the diploma/degree and not any time prior thereto. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner did not satisfy the condition of eligibility of Civil Writ Petition No. 22161 of 2010 one year experience on the cut off date, which was 15.07.2009. As per the reply, one year experience of the petitioner would be completed on 06.11.2009, which was much after cut off date. In support of his submissions, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Anil Kumar Gupta and others versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 128. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aspect whether the experience gained before attaining the requisite qualification would count towards eligibility and has observed that advertisement, which prescribed two years' professional experience without linking it with the degree qualifications than the professional experience gained both as diploma holder or degree was countable towards two years experience as prescribed in the advertisement in the said case. On the other hand, Mr. Nehra has relied on Indian Airlines Ltd. V. S. Gopalakrishnan etc. 2001 (1) S.C.T. 410, where it is held that if the rule prescribes and recognises experience only gained after acquiring requisite qualifications, any experience gained before acquiring such qualification will be of no avail and cannot be computed for that purpose. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. I am of the considered view that the observations made in Anil Kumar Gupta's case (supra) are not strictly attracted to the facts of the case. The observations noted above are made in the different context. It was a case where a person, who had worked in the department was holding diploma and was entitled to experience as such though subsequently he had acquired degree. In Civil Writ Petition No. 22161 of 2010 this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where experience is not linked with the degree then the experience gained before acquiring degree could also be counted. In my view, the experience as provided in the advertisement in this case is related to the diploma, which was also the essential qualification. The ratio of law laid down in Indian Airlines Ltd.'s case (supra), thus, appears to be nearer to the facts of the present case. Following the same, it can be said that any experience, which the petitioner had gained prior to acquiring diploma would not be open to be counted towards the experience prescribed in the present case. There is yet another infirmity staring at the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim himself to be qualified on the basis that he had appeared in final semester examination in the year 2006 as he was yet to pass complete papers of first and second semesters. He cleared those subjects in 2008. Infact, he cannot claim any qualification prior to the date of declaration of result, which was on basis of all the semester examination. I find no merit in the pleas raised by the petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. July 21, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE