IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 15727 of 2008. Decided on: September 16, 2011. Ranu Ram and another …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For respondents 1 and 2 Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt.AG For respondent No. 3 Mr. D.K.Khanna, Advocate. For respondent No. 4 Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners, Ranu Ram and Vijay Kumar, filed an Original Application before the then H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, now abolished, challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4, as Silk Seed Production Officer, by respondents 1 and 2, i.e. State of H.P. through Secretary (Industry) and Director of Industries to the Govt. of H.P. respectively, on the basis of selection made by respondent No. 3, i.e. H.P. Public Service Commission. Said Tribunal having been abolished, matter has come to this Court and it has been registered as Civil Writ Petition. 2. Admitted facts are that one post of Silk Seed Production Officer, was advertised by respondent No. 3, in Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - June, 2007. Both the petitioners, respondent No. 4 and five other candidates, applied for the post. All the eight candidates were interviewed. Respondent No. 4 was selected and recommended for appointment and finally appointed. 3. Petitioners ‘contention is that respondent No. 4 was not even eligible for the post, as he did not possess qualification of training in Sericulture and also he did not have the requisite experience. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed common reply. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed separate replies. In all the replies, it is stated that respondent No. 4 was not only eligible, but better qualified than the petitioners, he having done B.Sc. in Zoology, Botany and Sericulture subjects and also he had the requisite experience and training, in the field of Sericulture. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also counsel, representing the respondents, and gone through the record. 6. Contention, raised by counsel for the petitioners, that respondent No. 4 did not undergo any training in Sericulture, is not well founded. Respondents have placed on record Certificate, Annexure R-4/D, issued by the Principal of the College, where respondent No. 4 had been studying. As per this Certificate, respondent No. 4 had been undergoing practical training in Sericulture, for 60 days every year, when he was student of B.Sc. Parts (I), (II) and (III). Apart from this, his Graduation Certificate shows that he has done B.Sc., with Sericulture, Botany and Zoology as compulsory subjects. - 3 - 7. Main thrust of the submissions, made on behalf of the petitioners, is with respect to the condition regarding experience. As per advertisement, candidates, who had passed B.Sc. in Zoology and Botany or its equivalent, were required to have three years experience in Sericulture operation. Respondent No. 4 produced Certificate, Annexure R-3-2, issued by Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Mandi, per which he had worked as Field Assistant, under the Special Component Project, namely “Rural Development through Diversification in Agriculture” under Sub Component “Sericulture”, w.e.f. 4.6.2002 to 16.8.2006 and was further deputed to the office of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Mandi. 8. Learned counsel, representing the petitioners, submits that Certificate is issued by Project Officer of District Rural Development Agency, which is a funding agency and not the operational or executive agency and, therefore, no reliance can be placed thereon. Project Officer of District Rural Development Agency, is the over all incharge of all the Projects, run within his jurisdiction. Certificate reads that the petitioner was deputed to the office of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Mandi training in Sub Component “Sericulture” of Rural Development through Diversification in Agriculture. There should be no reason to disbelieve this Certificate, simply on the basis of submission that Rural Development Agency is a funding agency and not the operational or executing agency. - 4 - 8. In view of the above stated position, I see no merit in the contention, raised on behalf of the petitioners, that respondent No. 4 was not eligible for the post. Hence, petition is dismissed. September 16, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.