Civil Writ Petition No.12863 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12863 of 2007 Decided on : 05-08-2009 Manish Aggarwal .... Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited & another .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL. Present:- Mr. DS Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, with Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate, for the respondents. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral). The petitioner was one of the candidate against 33 posts of Assistant Engineer/Electornics (Traninee) advertised vide advertisement dated 15.2.2007. The essential qualification prescribed for the said post was as under:- “Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Electronics/ Electronics & Communications/ Electronics & Telecommunication/ Electronics & Electrical Communication/ “Electronics & Instrumentation Engineering” or equivalent qualifications”. In the note, it was clearly mentioned that the candidates applying for the above post must be having 60% marks in the above qualification.” The petitioner, who has passed the degree of Bachelor Civil Writ Petition No.12863 of 2007 -2- of Engineering in Electronics & Communications with 75.32 % marks, being fully eligible for the said post, has applied for the same. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that he was fully eligible, he was not called for interview. Hence, he has filed the instant petition. In the written statement, it has been stated that 97 candidates (three times of the number of 33 posts) were shortlisted by the respondent-Corporation for the purpose of calling for interview. For that purpose, they have adopted the following criteria:- Basic qualification (BE) with 60% marks Higher qualification (M.Tech./M BA) total points Experience (total Points 10) Marks obtained 60% to 70% Points 50 Marks obtained more than 70% Points 60 5 points for higher qualifications Experience in large private sector companies and Government Companies Addl. Weightage for working in power utilities. (5) Years Points Years Points 1 year 1 1 year 1 2 years 2 2 years 2 3 years 3 3 years 3 4 years 4 4 years 4 5 years 5 5 years 5 Maximum points are 5 Maximum additional weightage points are 5 Total Interview points 25 According to the aforesaid criteria, the petitioner has secured only 60 points, so he was not called for interview. On May 21, 2009, during the course of arguments, Civil Writ Petition No.12863 of 2007 -3- counsel for the petitioner had stated that some of the candidates, who had secured 60 points as secured by the petitioner, have been called for interview, but he was not called for interview. In view of the said statement, counsel for the respondents was directed to file the list of all the candidates, who were called for interview in the general category giving the details of the points obtained by them as per the above said criteria. He was also further directed to file the list of the candidates who had secured 60 points, but were not called for interview. In pursuance to the said direction, an affidavit of Sh. K.B. Gupta, Chief Engineer(Administration) HPGCL, Panchkula along with two lists (Annexures A-1 and A-2) has been filed. Annexure A-1 to the said affidavit depicts the name of 63 candidates, who are belonging to general category and have been called for interview against 21 posts of general category. This list shows that the candidates from serial No.37 to 63, had secured 60 points, but they were called for interview. This list further shows that the candidates from serial No.37 to 63, who were called for interview, had secured 86.48% to 77.92% in Bachelor of Engineering examination. Mr. Narender Hooda has pointed out that Annexure A-2 is the list of 239 candidates, who had secured 60 points, but were not called for interview as their marks in the basic qualification was less than 77.92%, The name of the petitioner existed in the said list at serial No.41. He has argued that when the total number of Civil Writ Petition No.12863 of 2007 -4- candidates, who secured 60 points, were more than 97, then before the interview a decision was taken for shortlisting them. Only those 63 candidates, who had secured more than 77.92% marks in the basic qualification, were called for interview. The criteria adopted by the respondents for shortlisting those candidates, does not appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Both the aforesaid list and the record have been shown to the counsel for the petitioner. He could not point out any discrimination, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in calling 63 candidates for interview. Not a single candidate, who secured less than 77.92% marks as basic qualification was called for interview. In view of these uncontroverted facts, I do not find any ground to interfere in the said selection. No merits. Dismissed. 5th August, 2009. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) Monika JUDGE