IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 11995 of 2010 Date of Decision: 1.3.2011. Prabh Deep Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anu Pal, A.A.G., Punjab. Mr. D.K. Kaushal, Advocate for respondents no.3 & 4. Mr. S.K. Aneja, Advocate for respondent no.5. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Govt. of India enacted National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. Under Section 12 of the Act the State Govt. is required to constitute a State Council to be known as the State Employment Guarantee Council for the purposes of regular monitoring and reviewing the implementation of the Act at State level. Section 14 of the Act further provides that the Chief Executive Officer of the District Panchayat or Collector of the district or any other district level officer of the appropriate rank as the State Govt. may decide, is to be designated as the District Programme Coordinator for implementation of the scheme in the district. Respondent no.3-D.C., Faridkot-cum-District Programme Coordinator (N.R.E.G.A) issued an advertisement for appointment of Coordinator under the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Scheme for the district. Educational qualifications prescribed for the post were as under:- CWP. No. 11995 of 2010 -2- “ Educational Qualification Post Graduate+ preference will be given to experience of computer skill or retired computer skill D.D.P.O/B.D.P.O/A.D.O, age 18-35 years.” A lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- was payable as honorarium. In the same advertisement the criteria for selection has also been notified which reads as under:- “ Criteria specified for selection of candidates (a) 70% of total percentage of basic qualification (b) 10 marks for higher qualification (next higher degree-10) (c) 10 marks for experience (2 marks for each year experience) and 10 marks for interview.” Petitioner and respondent no.5 both applied for the post of Coordinator. Both of them were called for interview on 21.4.2010 in the office of Zila Parishad, Faridkot with the requisite certificates. After the interview merit of the candidates was prepared and displayed on the notice board of the respondent no.3. On the basis of the merit list, respondent no.5 has been appointed as Coordinator. Petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no.5 allegedly on account of award of marks to respondent no.5. According to the petitioner, respondent no.5 has been given unnecessary marks for higher qualification, though, he does not possess any higher qualification than the basic qualification. As far as the petitioner's qualifications are concerned, he has passed Master of Physical Education from Nagpur. He has further passed M.Phil, Physical Education. Petitioner also produced an experience certificate of three years of working as a Computer Instructor in Mahatma Gandhi Memorial School, Faridkot for the CWP. No. 11995 of 2010 -3- period 1.8.2003 to 31.12.2006. Respondent no.5 possesses qualification of M.A and M.C.A and has produced one year experience certificate. From the merit list (Annexure P-5) it appears that the petitioner has been awarded 44.66% marks for the basic qualification of M.P.Ed with a percentage of 63.80, 5 marks for higher qualification i.e. M.Phil and 8 marks in the interview. In view of the criteria 75% marks are reserved for basic qualification i.e. Post Graduation. Thus, the total marks secured by the petitioner come to 57.66. Respondent no.5 has been awarded 47.63 marks for basic qualification of M.A with his percentage 67.19% , 5 additional marks for M.C.A, considering the same to be a higher qualification and adding 8 marks for the interview, his total marks come to 60.03 and thus he has been declared selected. Petitioner has two fold grievance. Firstly, respondent no.5 has been wrongly awarded 5 marks for higher qualification for possessing M.C.A qualification. It is contended that M.C.A is only a Post Graduation and respondent no.5 was not entitled to 5 marks treating the same as basic qualification. Additional 5 marks granted to respondent no.5 on account of M.C.A as higher qualification is totally illegal. M.C.A is not a higher qualification than the M.A. Secondly, that the petitioner has not been awarded 2 marks for every year of experience, though the petitioner had produced certificate of three years experience. The respondents in the reply while admitting that 5 marks have been awarded to respondent no.5, denied the weightage for the experience on the ground that experience certificate produced by the petitioner has been issued by the school, where father of petitioner was working as CWP. No. 11995 of 2010 -4- Principal. However, no verification has been made whether the petitioner had in fact gained experience from the said school or not. Even if, the petitioner is not awarded any marks for the experience, still the petitioner would have had better merit than respondent no.5, who has been awarded excess 5 marks for higher qualification of M.C.A which he was not entitled to, M.C.A and M.A both being Post Graduation degrees and are basic qualifications. Thus, the 5 marks awarded to respondent no.5 are to be deducted from his total marks i.e. 60.3. Respondent no.5 is, thus, entitled to only 55.03 marks, whereas the petitioner has a higher merit i.e. 57.66. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed. Engagement of respondent no.5 as Coordinator is hereby set aside. Official respondents are directed to engage the petitioner on the post of Coordinator, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 1.3.2011. lucky