L.P.A. No.1722 of 2011 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:15.09.2011 Meenakshi .... Appellant Versus Haryana Public Service Commission ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. P.K. Chugh, Advocate,for the appellant. PERMOD KOHLI, J. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the order dated 26.08.2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.14678 of 2011, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking a direction for appearance in the interview for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) Group-B in Haryana Education Department, has been dismissed. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal are short and precise. The Haryana Public Service Commission issued an advertisement No.7 for selection of various posts including 475 temporary pots of Lecturers (College Cadre) Group-B, in Haryana Education L.P.A. No.1722 of 2011 -2- Department on 28.10.2009. The last date for making application was 27.11.2009. The basic and essential qualifications prescribed for the posts were as under:- “ a) Good academic record with atleast 55% marks or equivalent grade of B in the 7 point Scale with letter grads O,A,B,C,D,E and F at the masters degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. b) Knowledge of Hindi/Sanskrit upto matric Standard. c) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) for lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC.” The petitioner claimed that she has qualified SET (State Eligibility Test) Examination which was very well accredited by the UGC. The petitioner was not allowed to participate in the interview on the ground that she has not cleared NET (National Eligibility Test). The petitioner accordingly filed writ petition seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to allow her to appear in the interview. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It appears that the main thrust of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the persons who had not qualified NET have been allowed to appear in the interview by granting exemption but similar treatment has been denied to him. Learned Single Judge found that the L.P.A. No.1722 of 2011 -3- submissions have not been substantiated by any material on record. It has also been observed that the exemption was available only to those candidates who were registered for Ph.D upto 31.05.2009 and to none else and dismissed the writ petition. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the arguments advanced before the learned Single Judge in regard to exemption to some of the candidates. The advertisement itself grants exemption to the candidates who have acquired Ph. D Degree or were registered as Ph. D candidates upto 31.05.2009 and in their cases also they would be entitled to appointment on acquiring the Ph. D qualification. Absolutely, no name of any candidate has been disclosed who has been granted exemption ignoring the prescribed qualification. Even during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to substantiate the contention raised. In view of the above, we do not find any valid ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. No merit. Appeal dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) 15.09.2011 JUDGE BLS Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO