-1- Civil Writ Petition No.3531 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 03,2008. Balvinder Kumar ... Petitioner VERSUS Guru Jameshwar University, Hissar ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The petitioner applied for the post of Peon under S.C.(B) Category in response to advertisement dated June 22, 2005,(Annexure P-1), (date wrongly mentioned as June 22,2006 -2- Civil Writ Petition No.3531 of 2007 in the Annexure), issued by the Guru Jambeshwar University, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent-University) whereby 30 posts of Peons were advertised. According to the petitioner, he appended copies of Matriculation Certificate, Experience Certificate, Caste Certificate and 70 % Handicapped Certificate along with the application form. He was interviewed for the said post on June 23, 2006 and was not selected. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the selection was not fair as the experience certificate dated June 20, 2006 (Annexure P-4) showing that he was working as a Peon in Bhuna Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Bhuna (Hisar), Haryana, (hereinafter referred to as `the Sugar Mill') since May 14, 1997, was not taken into consideration by the Selection Committee and candidates who were less meritorious than him were selected. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-University to appoint the petitioner against the post of Peon. In the written statement, the respondent-University has contested the claim of the petitioner. It has been pleaded that the experience certificate (Annexure P-4) issued by the Managing Director of the Sugar Mill depicting that the petitioner was working as a Peon there since May 14, 1997, is dated June 20, 2006, whereas the application for the post of Peon was -3- Civil Writ Petition No.3531 of 2007 submitted by the petitioner on July 06, 2005. Obviously, the experience certificate dated June 20, 2006 could not be attached with the application form submitted on July 06, 2005. The petitioner only mentioned about the experience in his application form, but no experience certificate was attached. It has further been pleaded that as per criteria adopted for the recruitment of Peons in the respondent-University, 30 marks were allocated for academic qualifications, 05 marks per completed year subject to a maximum of 20 marks for experience and 50 marks for interview. As experience certificate was not attached with the application form, no marks for experience were granted to the petitioner. He obtained total 45 marks i.e 30 marks for academic qualifications and 15 marks for interview, whereas the last candidate selected under S.C (B) Category obtained 62 marks. It has also been pleaded that once the petitioner faced the interview admitting the criteria, he cannot challenge the same if he was not selected by the Selection Committee. In the replication filed by the petitioner to the written statement of the respondent-University, besides reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, he took the stand that, in fact, he had appended with the application form the Experience Certificate dated February 20, 1997, indicating that he had been working as a Peon with the afore-stated Sugar Mill on fixed salary i.e on daily wage basis since June 28, 1993, till date. -4- Civil Writ Petition No.3531 of 2007 We have heard Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, appearing for the respondent-University and have gone through the records of the case. No doubt, if maximum 20 marks allocated for experience i.e 05 marks for every completed year subject to a maximum of 20 marks, had been granted to the petitioner in the interview, his tally of marks would have been 65, he having obtained 45 marks in the interview, and he would have been selected. The last candidate selected under S.C (B) Category had obtained 62 marks. The allegation of the petitioner that the Selection Committee did not consider his experience of more than eight years of serving as a Peon in the Sugar Mill cannot be accepted simply for the reason that the experience certificate (Annexure P-4) in this regard is dated June 20, 2006, whereas the application form for the post of Peon was submitted by the petitioner on July 06, 2005. Further, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the experience certificate (Annexure P-4) is accepted to be not attached with the application form, the same is presumed to have been shown to the Selection Committee at the time of interview held on June 23, 2006, cannot be upheld. In the advertisement dated June 22, 2005 (Annexure P-1), it was specifically incorporated that the candidates must attach certified copies of testimonials and other documents etc. along with the -5- Civil Writ Petition No.3531 of 2007 application form otherwise the applications would be rejected. If the petitioner was negligent in getting the experience certificate from his employer well in time and attaching it with the application form, he himself is to blame for it. No fault can be found with the Selection committee or with the selection process. The stand taken by the petitioner in his replication that he had appended along with the application form Experience Certificate dated February 20, 1997, showing that he had been working as Peon with the aforesaid Sugar Mill on daily wage basis since June 28, 1993, deserved to be rejected as an afterthought. It is also worth-mentioning that in column No.13 relating to `relevant experience' of the application form attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-2, it has been mentioned by the petitioner that he had been working in the Sugar Mill since May 14, 1997, which also negates his plea in the replication that he had been working in the Sugar Mill on daily wage basis since June 28, 1993. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE March 03, 2008. ak