C.W.P. No. 9222 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 9222 of 2009 Tej Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS Present: Mr.R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. C.W.P. No. 9865 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 08, 2009 Satish Kumar .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.9222 of 2009 and 9865 of 2009 filed by Tej Singh and Satish Kumar, who are unsuccessful candidates and were placed at serial Nos.2 and 3, respectively, in the merit list. In the present case, Chhotu Ram Kissan College, Jind, which is a Non Government Aided College, had invited applications for appointment of one post of Lecturer in Physical Education (General Category) on regular basis vide advertisement dated 10.10.2008. Both the petitioners C.W.P. No. 9222 of 2009 -2- along with other candidates, including Raj Pal Dhanda (respondent No.7 herein) being qualified applied for the said post. All the eligible and qualified candidates were interviewed on 12.1.2009 by a duly constituted Selection Committee. As per the criteria for selection (Annexure P4) laid down by the Government for selection of Lecturers in the Government Aided Privately managed Colleges, respondent No.7 secured 59 marks while petitioner Tej Singh secured 57 marks and petitioner Satish Kumar secured 56 marks. Consequently, respondent No.7 was selected for the said post and has been given appointment. In these petitions, both the petitioners have challenged the selection of respondent No.7. As per the proceedings, respondent No.7 secured 21 marks for academic record, 4 marks for teaching experience, 3 marks for NSS Certificate, 8 marks for sports and 23 marks for interview. Petitioner Tej Singh secured 31 marks for academic record, 10 marks for teaching experience and 16 marks for interview. Petitioner Satish Kumar secured 33 marks for academic record, 6 marks for teaching experience, 3 marks for NSS Certificate and 14 marks for interview. Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner Tej Singh secured 2nd position in 12 Km., 24th Haryana State Cross Country Championship, 1992 organized by K.D.A.A.A. of Kaithal District Olympic Association. Therefore, according to the selection criteria (Annexure P4), the petitioner was entitled for 5 marks for the said sports certificate which has not been granted to him. Similarly, counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner Satish Kumar secured 2nd position in Haryana State Seniors in Athletics i.e. 4x400 Mtr. Relay held by the Haryana State Amateur Athletics Association and the petitioner was also entitled for 5 marks in that category C.W.P. No. 9222 of 2009 -3- in accordance with the Instructions dated 20.11.1993 issued by the State Government, but the same has not been granted to him. In the petition, it has been averred that on an information received from the respondents, the petitioners have been informed that no marks on those sports certificates were allotted to them because they did not produce the gradation certificates of their sports certificates from the Sports Department of Haryana. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the criteria (Annexure P4) laid down by the Haryana Government, there is no requirement of gradation regarding sports certificate. Thus, the respondent-Selection Committee has illegally and arbitrarily not awarded the marks on account of sports activity, according to the sports certificates produced by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if 5 marks would have been awarded to the petitioners for their sports certificates, then respondent No.7 could not have been selected. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.7 was wrongly given 3 marks for NSS Certificate. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and going through the contents of the petition and the documents annexed with the petition, I do not find any merit in these petitions. Concededly, both the petitioners did not produce the gradation certificates of their sports certificates from the Sports Department of Haryana. The Sports Department of Haryana, after verifying the sports certificates issued to various participants by different Authorities or Associations, verify their genuineness and the fact whether an event had actually taken place or not, and thereafter, grade them taking into consideration the level of sports activities, and then issues the gradation certificates, which are to be taken into consideration by the concerned C.W.P. No. 9222 of 2009 -4- officer/s while giving benefit to that person on that account. The selection criteria (Annexure P4) provides that 10 marks will be given for the sports activities if the candidate is holding international position and 9 marks for participation in the international sports activities. Similarly, for national position holder, 8 marks are given and for participation 7 marks are given. For State position, the participant is given 5 marks. The respondents have considered only those sports certificates regarding sports activities which have been duly graded after verification by the Sports Department of Haryana. Since the certificates of the petitioners were not got verified and graded by the Sports Department of Haryana, the same were not taken into consideration. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid fact, in my opinion, the respondent-Selection Committee did not commit any illegality or irregularity while not awarding marks to the petitioners on account of their alleged sports certificates. Even if it is not mentioned in the selection criteria that there is no requirement of gradation regarding sports certificates, that does not make any difference because only the verified and graded sports certificates from the Sports Department of Haryana, are to be accepted. As far as the second contention of the petitioners that 3 marks have been wrongly awarded to respondent No.7 on account of NSS Certificate, also cannot be accepted. Admittedly, respondent No.7 is having the NSS Certificate, but the contention of the petitioners is that 3 marks can be awarded only if respondent No.7 is also possessing certificate of Scout. In my opinion, NSS and Scout are two different courses of training and if respondent No.7 is possessing NSS Certificate, he has been rightly awarded 3 marks on that account. C.W.P. No. 9222 of 2009 -5- In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in both the petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. July 08, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE