L.P.A. No. 990 of 2009 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 990 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 07.10.2009 Union of India through the Central Forensic ..........Appellants Science Laboratory & Anr. Versus Bhanu Pratap Singh ..........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mrs. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate for the appellants. **** ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade II (Ballistic) in response to the advertisement (Annexure P-1). 2. The respondent was working as Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory. Post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade II (Ballistic) was advertised. The respondent applied for the same. He did not receive interview call though he was eligible. He filed writ petition seeking direction for issuance of interview call letter. On 13.2.2009, while issuing notice, interim order was granted that the respondent be considered in the interview process, provisionally. 3. The appellants contested the writ petition by submitting that the respondent was not called for interview as his application was L.P.A. No. 990 of 2009 (O&M) (2) incomplete. He had left column No. 10 (B) in Part I of the application blank. 4. Learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the respondent that the relevant information had been furnished against column 10 (A) and thus keeping column10 (B) blank was of no consequence. Accordingly, the result of provisional interview was ascertained. Since it was found that the respondent had been duly selected, direction to consider the respondent on merits was issued. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Only contention which has been put forward is that since the application of the respondent was incomplete, he was not eligible to be considered for the interview. 7. We are unable to accept this submission. Learned Single Judge has recorded the following finding:- “Under Column 10 (A), the petitioner has clearly indicated that he possessed relevant experience for the post although the number of years, months and days was not given. On the second page of the form, however, where detailed particulars were required to be given in column 8, the details have been given which indicates experience of more than 11 years. An annexure detailing the experience was also appended therewith. The petitioner is a technocrat being M.Sc. in Physics and therefore, seems to have been filled in column 10 (B) because all the relevant details were given at page 2 in column 8 which requires the applicant to give details of employment in chronologic order. Even an annexure has been appended giving out the details of experience gained by the petitioner. Under the circumstances the respondents, on L.P.A. No. 990 of 2009 (O&M) (3) perusal of the form and accompanying material, could not have concluded that the petitioner lacked experience.” 8. Above finding has not been shown to be erroneous. Thus, the contention raised is hyper-technical. No ground is made out to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 07, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No