IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1795 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision : February 14, 2011 Dr. Baljinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Punjabi University through Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. 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 by an unsuccessful writ petitioner is directed against the judgment dated 2.12.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that Kulwinder Singh Bajwa-respondent No.2 is fully qualified to be appointed to the post of Reader (History) as he fulfilled all the educational qualification and experience. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the reading of following paras of the judgment, which read as under:- “This fact is not disputed that respondent No.2 was not given grade of Lecturer. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The criteria CWP No. 1795 of 2010(O&M) -2- laid down by UGC is not that of a teaching experience against a sanctioned post/in grade, but requirement is of teaching experience. The only safeguard required is, that the teaching experience should be of a institute of repute to avoid a person getting a certificate from unrecognized institution to claim eligibility. The Khalsa College, Amritsar, is well reputed College, and experience of teaching in the said College cannot be said to be, not from recognized institute so as to debar respondent No.2 from consideration. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 is holding a public office in an illegal manner, cannot be accepted, nor selection can be challenged, specially when the petitioner himself has taken a chance to compete but failed.” 2. Mr. Pankaj Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that respondent No.2 did not fulfill the requirement of educational qualification as he has less than 50% marks in B.A. In that regard, he has drawn our attention to the detailed marks card of respondent No.2 ,dated 29.6.1976 (on page 49 of the Paper Book), which shows that he had secured 316 marks out of 650 marks, which is less than 50%. According to the learned counsel even his experience is far less than the requirement for the post of Reader. In that regard, he CWP No. 1795 of 2010(O&M) -3- has drawn our attention to the experience certificate issued by the Khalsa College, Amritsar, on 9.9.2006 (R-2/3), which shows experience of six years of teaching of under graduate classes. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the submissions made by the learned counsel are devoid of any merit. A perusal of the application dated 17.5.2006 sent by respondent No.2 (P-5) would reveal that he had qualified B.A. Degree from G.N.D.U. in April, 1996 with 316 marks out of 650 marks. He has also qualified additional subject of Philosophy from G.N.D.U. in 1994 by securing 425 marks out of 600 marks. Therefore, he had secured more than 50% of marks at graduation level. The other argument is also liable to be completely overlooked. The huge experience respondent No.2 has acquired while working as Research Fellow from 8.5.1979 to 7.5.1982 (3 years) and then from 19.3.1983 to 18.3.1984 (1 year). He also acquired huge experience as Research Associate from 30.1.1989 to 31.1.1994 (5 years) and Lecturer in History from 1.2.1994 to 31.1.1995 (1 year). He also served Khalsa College, Amritsar as Incharge, Sikh History and Research Department from 10.5.1996 to 4.3.2007. Therefore, his total period comes to about 21 years out of which more than 10 years he has spent as Lecturer. The requirement of the advertisement is fulfilled which stipulated five years experience of teaching and of Research. Besides the aforesaid, respondent No.2 has to his credit more than 50 papers which speaks volumes about his CWP No. 1795 of 2010(O&M) -4- scholarly career. Moreover, the appellant has participated in the selection and having failed cannot be permitted to challenge the selection of respondent No.2. There is no merit in the appeal and the same does not merit admission. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 4. In view of the fact that we have dismissed the appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 175 days in filing of the present appeal. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S.MANN ) February 14, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I