IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1524 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 11, 2010 Parshant …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The unsuccessful petitioner-appellant has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 11.9.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge in unequivocal terms has observed that the issue sought to be raised by the petitioner-appellant is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a member) rendered in the case of Geeta Devi v. State of Haryana (CWP No. 21663 of 2008, decided on 3.7.2009). In that case also the statutory expression for interpretation was ‘experience of working’. The Division Bench interpreted it to mean that the experience gained while working on ad hoc / officiating basis would also be regarded as ‘experience of working’. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and found no ground warranting admission of the instant appeal as the matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment rendered in Geeta Devi’s case (supra). Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) November 11, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2