IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4768 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 13, 2010 Kuldeep Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing selection/ appointment of respondent No.4 (Satinder Jeet Kaur) as Head Mistress. Further prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner as Head Mistress. CWP No.4768 of 2009 [2] 2. It has been pleaded in the petition that respondent No.1 i.e. Secretary, Department of School Education, Punjab, issued advertisement No.1/ October, 2006 (Annexure P-8) published in `The Tribune’ dated 21.10.2006, inviting applications from eligible candidates for various posts including 431 posts of Head Masters/Mistresses. Out of the said 431 posts, 31 posts were reserved for ex-servicemen. The petitioner belongs to ex-servicemen category. Recruitment was required to be made directly on the basis of merit without any test or interview. 3. So far as the academic qualification is concerned, the petitioner has been found eligible. The only issue is whether the petitioner had the requisite experience on the relevant date viz. 13.11.2006. 4. While the petitioner claims that she had the experience as required under advertisement, the respondents have disputed the fact. 5. The case set up by the respondents is that the petitioner is M.A. with B.Ed. However, the experience of teaching as required under advertisement is of 7 years, under service rules, for the post of Head Master/Mistress which criteria the petitioner does not fulfil. The CWP No.4768 of 2009 [3] petitioner relied on experience certificates, Annexure P-5, 6 and 7 which were issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.2.2000, 22.5.2003 and 2.12.2006. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the experience certificate dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure P-7), that indicates experience of the petitioner in teaching w.e.f. 19.4.2004 to 8.8.2006, could not be taken into account for the reason that the date fixed by the Committee for submission of certificates/ documents was 13.11.2006. Surely, the certificate issued on 2.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) could not have been produced on that date and therefore on the said date i.e. 13.11.2006, no material was available with the Committee to indicate the required experience so as to allow the petitioner to compete, considering the eligibility criteria. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the above fact, as asserted by learned counsel for the respondents. 6. I, having considered the issue, am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner for competing, in the context of eligibility criteria, has been ignored by the respondents for the right reasons. The experience gained by the petitioner from 19.4.2004 to 8.8.2006 is made evident from Annexure P-7 dated 2.12.2006. Last CWP No.4768 of 2009 [4] date fixed for submission of documents before the Committee was 13.11.2006. As on that date, the petitioner was not able to show her experience and therefore, has been considered to be ineligible. No fault in the action of the respondents can be traced in such circumstances. 7. The facts and circumstances made out above do not call for judicial review of the action of the respondents. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 13, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?