LPA No. 1171 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1171 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 03.02.2011 Vikram Singh Chahal ---Appellant Versus State of Haryana & others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Narinder Singh Behgal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. A.G., Haryana Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 25.08.2010, rendered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has held that Shri Sudhir Kadyan-respondent No.5, has been rightly selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Director, Industrial Safety and Health (Group- B), in Labour Department, Haryana and he fulfilled the requirement of experience. The last date for receipt of the application for the aforesaid post was 12.02.2009 and the learned LPA No. 1171 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Single Judge has held that Shri Sudhir Kadyan-respondent No.5, would be deemed to have fulfilled the requirement of experience of two years, even if he started working w.e.f. 01.03.2007. The learned Single Judge also distinguished the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission, 2002 (3) S.C.T. 572 and proceeded to observe as under: “ Thereafter the counsel has referred to the experience of Sudhir Kadyan, who had statedly served with a concern at Bangalore w.e.f. 1.3.2007. The counsel contends that this person would not have two years experience on the date of filing of the application. The counsel has referred to the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Haryana Staff Selection Commission, 2002 (3) S.C.T. 572 to urge that eligibility was to be considered on the last date fixed for receipt of applications. The decision in Ashok Kumar's case (supra) was in the background of note appended in the advertisement and experience was to be determined with reference to the last date fixed for receipt of application. There is no such stipulation in the advertisement in the present case so far as experience is concerned. This is only in regard to qualification. The ratio of the LPA No. 1171 of 2010 (O&M) -3- judgment would not strictly apply here.” 2. The writ petitioner-appellant felt aggrieved on account of fact that from 01.03.2007 to 12.02.2009, the period cannot be calculated to be two years' and experience of Shri Sudhir Kadyan- respondent No.5 would be short of years on the cut of date of 12.02.2009. It is submitted that he was not eligible for appointment to the aforesaid post. 3. When the matter came up for motion hearing, we granted permission to respondent to file affidavit so as to have clear picture on facts as the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge at the first date of hearing. In the affidavits now filed, it has been clarified that Shri Sudhir Kadyan, in fact had started his job on 03.01.2007 and at the time of furnishing information to the writ petitioner-appellant under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity 'the RTI Act'), a mistake was committed by the concerned officer. It is asserted that he has in fact acquired experience of 2 years, 1 months and 9 days by the last date of application, namely, 12.02.2009. The aforesaid fact is clear from the table produced in para 6 of the affidavit filed by respondent No.1. It is evident from entry No.5 of the table pertaining to Shri Sudhir Kadyan-respondent No.5. Likewise, written statement has also been filed by the Haryana Public Service Commission-respondent No.2, where similar stand has been taken in para 10 of the reply. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 5, the experience certificate issued by M/s. Accenture Service Private Ltd., Banglore (Annexure R- LPA No. 1171 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 5/1) has also been produced, which shows that respondent No.5 was employed with them since January 03, 2007. It is apparent that when the writ petitioner-appellant secured information under the RTI Act, the official has erroneously recorded the date as 01.03.2007 without realizing that it has to be 03.01.2007. Accordingly, we find on facts that Shri Sudhir Kadyan-respondent No.5 fulfills the condition of experience of two years and is fully qualified. With regard to other candidates Shri Shailesh Ahlawat, no serious dispute could be raised in respect of his experience as he has more than sufficient experience. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal, no lack of experience/ qualification in respect of the selected candidates is discernible. 4. Accordingly, the appeal does not merit admission and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE February 3, 2011 Atul