IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 9761 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 07.07.2009 Manoj Sharma .... PETITIONER Versus Punjabi University, Patiala and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the appointment of respondent No.2 as Manager (University Press) made by Punjabi University, Patiala. It is the case of the petitioner that he is having three year Diploma in Printing and Technology and is also having the work experience of administration and management of a large scale printing press, as he was working as a Senior Officer with the Hindustan Times. It is further case of the petitioner that in the impugned selection, respondent No.2 was illegaly selected by ignoring the vast experience of the petitioner in the field. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is more than 53 years of age and the petitioner being younger to him having more experience has CWP No. 9761 of 2009 -2- been illegally ignored. It is the conceded position that respondent No.2 possesses the requisite qualifications as per the advertisement. However, it is stated that he should not have been taken to have the requisite administrative experience of at least five years in management and administration of a large Printing Press with allied branches. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 was working as a Foreman and the experience of a Foreman should not be taken as an administrative experience. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner can not be accepted. In my opinion, a Foreman is required to manage the working of the entire Printing Press. Therefore, his experience as a Foreman is a good experience in the administrative capacity. Regarding the contention that the petitioner is more meritorious and is having more experience, I am of the opinion that the selection of a candidate cannot be set aside on such a ground. In the instant case, the Interview Committee found respondent No.2 more meritorious and suitable candidate. The jurisdiction of the Interview Committee in this regard cannot be questioned in the writ jurisdiction, until and unless some bias or malafide has been shown, which is not the case of the petitioner. Thus, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. July 07, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE