IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 9695 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 06.07.2009 Raj Kumar .... PETITIONER Versus Managing Director, Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Panchkula and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. On 22.3.2007, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (respondent No.3 herein) advertised 55 posts of Field Inspector (Store) for appointment in the Department of Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited. As per the essential qualifications prescribed, a candidate must be (i) Graduate from recognized University; and (ii) Having minimum one year Diploma in Computer from the recognized University/Institute. The petitioner applied for the above said post under the Scheduled Caste category. After the interview, respondent No.3 declared the result. The petitioner was also declared successful in the Scheduled Caste category. Respondent No.3 sent the list of selected candidates to the Department for giving them appointment after verification CWP No. 9695 of 2009 -2- of the Degree/Documents pertaining to the qualification, experience, age and caste/category etc., as claimed by the candidates in the application forms. On verification by the Department, out of 44 candidates, 31 candidates were issued the appointment letters. The appointment letters of the remaining 13 candidates were not issued due to lack of proof of their essential qualification. The name of the petitioner was also withheld, as he has not passed one year Diploma in Computer from the recognized University/ Institution. A sub committee was constituted by the Department to consider the claim of appointment of these candidates, including the petitioner. The committee, after examining the record and by seeking information from the concerned Institutions, from where the candidates obtained the alleged Degree or Diploma, came to the conclusion that 6 candidates, including the petitioner, do not possess the minimum prescribed qualification for the said post. When the petitioner was not appointed, he made representation on 27.10.2008 and 1.11.2008. When his representations were not decided, he filed CWP No. 2437 of 2009 in this Court, which was disposed of on 16.2.2009, with a direction to the respondents to decide the representations, filed by the petitioner, after passing a speaking order. Consequently, vide the impugned order dated 29.5.2009, the representation of the petitioner has been considered and it has been found that the Diploma Course in Software Engineering obtained by the petitioner from Foresight Technical Education Centre, New Delhi, was not from a recognized institution, therefore, he was CWP No. 9695 of 2009 -3- not possessing the requisite qualification for the said post. The sub committee came to the said conclusion while considering the reply received from the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi (West), wherein he has informed that the aforesaid Centre was not recognized by any University or Institution. The said Centre was registered only in the year 2000. When the petitioner obtained one year Diploma in Software Engineering for the Sessions from 17.11.1995 to 20.11.1996, the said institution was not registered. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the factual position that when the petitioner obtained Diploma, the said institution was not registered or recognized by the Government or by any University. In view of this conceded fact, the petitioner was not possessing the essential qualification for appointment on the said post, as he was not possessing one year Diploma in Computer from the recognized University/Institution. The petitioner has not placed on record any proof that Foresight Technical Education Centre, New Delhi, was a recognized institution on the day, he passed the Diploma Course from that institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that certain other candidates had obtained one year Diploma in Computer from the registered institution, which was not affiliated to any University and they have been given appointment. In my opinion, this plea will not help the petitioner, because as far as the institution from where the petitioner had obtained the CWP No. 9695 of 2009 -4- Diploma is concerned, it was not even registered at that time. No case of discrimination has been made out, as no candidate, who had obtained one year Diploma in Computer from the said institution, has been given appointment. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. July 06, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE