IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18775 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 14, 2010 Parvesh Puhal ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Dr.Surya Parkash, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby his selection for LPG Distributorship has been cancelled. He also seeks quashing of the order dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure P-17) whereby, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner’s representation has been turned down by passing a speaking order by the respondents. 2] Pursuant to an advertisement dated 9.11.2007 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation inviting applications for allotment of LPG Distributorship at Rewari under the Scheduled Castes Category, the petitioner applied and having been placed at Sr.No.1 in the merit panel, C.W.P.No .18775 of 2010 2 he was selected for the said LPG distributorship. In terms of the eligibility conditions, the candidates were required to have one year working experience at a Gas Agency. The petitioner also claimed experience of working with M/s Panipat Gas Agency at Panipat for the period 1999-2004 and was placed at Sr.No.1 in the merit panel on the basis of the marks allocated to him for his experience. The petitioner also relied upon his academic qualification of L.L.B. degree from Jivaji University, Gwalior (M.P.) passed in the year 2006. It may be noticed here that the selection criteria was comprised of total 30 marks divided into the following heads:- 1. Educational Qualification : 15 2. Age : 04 3. Experience : 04 4. Business ability/acumen : 05 5. Personality : 02 Total : 30 3] Since the petitioner’s selection in the merit panel was subject to the verification of documents relied upon by him, the respondent- Corporation appointed a Committee of two officers for the fact investigation and on the basis of its report wherein it was found that the petitioner was a regular student of professional degree course of L.L.B. at Gwalior (M.P.) during the year 2003-2004 and thus, he could not have gained any working experience simultaneously at a Gas Agency in Panipat during the said period, the respondents cancelled the petitioner’s candidature vide the impugned order dated 29.6.2010 (Annexure P-1) on the ground of misrepresentation of facts towards the experience, after C.W.P.No .18775 of 2010 3 observing as follows:- “……..It has come to our notice during the investigation carried out by Committee of two officers that while in your application you had represented of having working experience at M/s Panipat Gas Agency, Panipat during the period 1999- 2004, however, as per your own declaration, you completed Professional Degree course as a regular student at Jiwaji University, Gwalior in the year 2006. Hence one year period i.e. 2003-04 of your experience falls within the period when you were pursuing professional degree course as a regular student at Jiwaji University, Gwalior as per your declaration and certificates filed. You were given sufficient time by the FIR Committee to prove your credentials as stated by you in your application form which you failed to prove………” 4] The aggrieved petitioner approached this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.12493 of 2010 which was disposed of on 19.7.2010 with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the petitioner’s contentions regarding his eligibility and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. 5] Pursuant to these directions, the respondent-Corporation has re-considered and has rejected the petitioner's representation by passing a speaking order dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure P-17), the concluding para whereof reads as follows:- “…….a) The petitioner has acquired his LLB degree as regular student at Jiwaji University which required minimum 75% attendance. Considering that there are 310 working days (excluding Sundays/Holidays) then C.W.P.No .18775 of 2010 4 the presence of the petitioner at Panipat Gas Agency should have been for 310 days. However, as per the notice dated 29.7.2010 sent by the petitioner through his advocate, it is claimed that the petitioner has worked at the agency only for 98 days which also includes the Sundays/Holidays during which agency is on a holiday. Thus, the petitioner does not have “one full year” experience for the year 2003-04. Moreover, the distance from Panipat (Haryana) to Datia (Madhya Pradesh) is 474 Kms and takes more than 8 hours by Road or Rail. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim that he was attending college at Datia (MP) by day and traveled about 8 hours by night to attend the work at Panipat Gas Agency, Panipat in Haryana is not tenable as it is practically not possible to be present in the College at Datia (M.P.) to get 75% attendance and also be present for 310 working days at the Gas Agency in Panipat….” 6] I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders. 7] The petitioner has though selectively concealed the fact that M/s Panipat Gas Agency, Panipat, where he is said to have gained the working experience is owned and run by his own father, namely, Ramesh Chander Puhal, never-the-less, this fact was reluctantly admitted during the course of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, made a strenuous affort to explain that even as a regular student of L.L.B. professional course where the petitioner was required to secure 75% C.W.P.No .18775 of 2010 5 lecturers only, he used to work at M/s Panipat Gas Agency during the remaining period. 8] In my considered view, the aforesaid plea is simply an after thought. Since the petitioner is said to have been a regular student in the L.L.B. degree course at a far away place like Gwalior, it would be too far fetched to accept that he simultaneously kept on working at M/s Panipat Gas Agency also. Both the factual pleas taken by the petitioner cannot be reconciled and one of them is atleast false. The possibility of securing a false working experience certificate is more probable as M/s Panipat Gas Agency is his family business. The Experience Certificate relied upon by him does not disclose or indicate that the experience was gained by him intermittently. The petitioner apparently did not disclose the true and correct facts to the respondent-Corporation nor has approached this Court with clean hands. 9] No interference with the impugned orders is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 10] Dismissed. October 14, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE