C.W.P.8471 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.W.P.8471 of 2008 Date of decision: February 15,2011 Rajiv Bahout ..Petitioner. Versus HPGCL and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 ... RANJIT SINGH,J.(Oral) The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the selection and appointment of private respondent Nos. 3 to 10, who have been appointed as Assistant Engineers(Electronics) in the service of Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited. An advertisement was issued on 15.2.2007 inviting applications for appointment to the six posts of Assistant Engineers (Electronics) (Trainee) in the category of Scheduled Castes. The petitioner, who was eligible and was having degree of Master of Technology, applied for appointment to the said post. He however was not called for interview. Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 have been selected and appointed as Assistant Engineers(Electronics)(Trainee). The petitioner had made representation (Annexure P-12) on 16.9.2007 prior to the appointment, asking for criteria, which was fixed for selecting the candidates for calling them for interview. C.W.P.8471 of 2008 2 This did not invite any response. The petitioner thereafter, file an application dated 19.11.2007 under Right to Information Act,2005. The petitioner ultimately was supplied the necessary information. The petitioner has approached this court through the present writ petition, to urge that even the petitioner was entitled to 60 points which was the minimum requirement for short listing the candidates, for being called for interview. The counsel contends that the action of the respondents in not calling the petitioner for interview is arbitrary and discriminatory and hence would call for interference. Noticing this very point, notice of motion has been issued. Reply has been filed. The respondents would contend that petitioner has been rightly assessed and was given 55 marks on the basis of criteria adopted, and he thus, fell short of the points, attained by last short listed candidate, who had obtained 60 points. It is pleaded that the petitioner was not rightly called for interview. It is disclosed that petitioner has been given 50 marks on the basis of his percentage of marks obtained in graduation degree. The petitioner has been given 5 marks for his additional qualification of Master of Technology. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been given any marks for his experience, which was 4 years and 4 months in BSNL. The respondents of course would justify their action in not giving any marks to the petitioner for experience. As per the respondent- Corporation, the petitioner had not annexed any documentary proof in support of his experience, though he had mentioned his service with the BSNL being 4 years 4 months. The counsel for the respondents accordingly contends that the petitioner was rightly not given any marks for C.W.P.8471 of 2008 3 experience for lack of providing necessary proof in this regard, which was essential requirement. Attention is drawn to Annexure R-1/1 which are minutes of meeting, where the marks for the experience could be granted, only when there was a supporting document attached. The experience was not to be considered,if there was no supporting document attached to the application. Learned counsel for the respondent would further contend that even if the experience of the petitioner is taken into account, still he would not qualify for being called for the interview. In this respect, the counsel refers to the decision by the selection committee as to how the marks of the experience were required to be allowed. The marks for experience were to be allocated on the basis of number of years of service rendered by an applicant. Like one year experience was to carry one mark and accordingly 5 marks for 5 years experience. As per this decision, 4 years 4 months being less than 5 years, would fetch 4 marks only. Even if these marks are granted to the petitioner, he would not make the grade and would remain ineligible. In view of the above, I do not see any merit in the writ petition calling for interference, the same is accordingly dismissed. February 15,2011 (RANJIT SINGH) nk JUDGE