CWP NO.7238 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.7238 OF 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 02.05.2008 Dr.Dinesh .....PETITIONER VERSUS Kurukshetra University Kuruksehtra and others .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr.Sanjeev K.Tamak, Advocate for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the recommendations of the Selection Committee (Annexure P16) wherein respondents No.3 and 4 were recommended for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Physical Education. Earlier the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the rejection of his candidature to the said post. This Court allowed the writ petition on 14.02.2008 and the University offered to consider the candidature of the petitioner as within the zone of consideration and that Selection Committee, which has considered the candidature of other CWP NO.7238 OF 2008 2 candidates will consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Physical Education in the same manner as the candidature of the other candidates were considered. In terms of the said order, the candidature of the petitioner has been considered and now vide report dated 25.03.2008, respondents No.3 and 4 have been recommended for appointment to the post. The report gives the comparative qualification and experience of the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4. The comparison of qualification and experience does not lead to any inference that the Selection Committee acted in wholly arbitrary and unreasonable manner while making recommendations for appointment of respondents No.3 and 4. In fact, respondents No.3 and 4 have got 67.5% and 70.17% marks in M.A. as against the petitioner, who has got 61.7% marks. Respondent No.3 has got experience of 9 years whereas respondent No.4 got experience of 3 years of teaching Postgraduate classes and 2 years of undergraduate classes whereas the petitioner has experience of 22 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent No.3 has relied upon experience of 9 years of teaching in Dayal Singh College, Karnal where there was no subject of Physical Education and, therefore, the benefit of experience has wrongly granted. If a candidate has made a wrong declaration and benefit has been granted to him, it is for the Selection Committee to consider the contention of the experience certificate furnished by the candidates. Once the certificate has been taken into consideration, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the contention of respondent No.3 in the writ petition. CWP NO.7238 OF 2008 3 Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE ( MOHINDER PAL ) May 02, 2008 JUDGE jt