IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3969 of 2009 Date of decision:04 .02.2010 Vandana Dhadwal and another ....Petitioners versus Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.L. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition exposes an unsavory goings-on in the Panjab University. To an advertisement issued by the University through Advertisement No.12/2007 calling for applicants for several posts, the petitioners had responded as being eligible for consideration for the posts of Store Keepers. The qualifications necessary were gradates with GDMM (Graduate Diploma in Materials Management)/Diploma in store keeping and management duly recognized or any other qualification as equivalent to the above. The petitioners admittedly had the above qualifications. Along with the applications, they had submitted some experience certificates issued to the effect that they had been working as Civil Writ Petition No.3969 of 2009 - 2 - Store Keepers in PGI. Out of 11 persons who had applied, 7 persons had been short-listed and called for interview, of whom, the petitioners 1 and 2 formed part. One person did not show up at the interview and only 6 persons had appeared. The Interview Committee appears to have rejected all the applications and called for fresh advertisement. 2. The petitioners who were chagrined at their non-selection sought for information through the Information Commission as to why they had been rejected out of consideration. They also wanted to elicit information through the PIO, Panjab University, the criteria adopted for the selection to the posts. The response to the Information Commission's queries and what was elicited by them are indeed shocking. The University had stated that no criteria had been prepared or approved by the Senate or the Panjab University for the post of Store Keeper. When the query was with reference to the marks obtained by candidates, the response was that the marks given by the Committee members to the candidates were not available on the records. Along with the reply before this Court, the University has filed copy of the proceedings of the Selection Committee and what it exhibits is a further affirmation of the farce of exercise that the University was indulging in. The endorsement in the proceedings of the Selection Committee states “none was found suitable for the post of Store Keepers, the post be readvertised.” It is un-understandable as to how the Selection Committee found the candidates to be not suitable when they had not even evolved the necessary criteria for selection. Civil Writ Petition No.3969 of 2009 - 3 - 3. Now a whole new case is trotted out through the written statement filed to the effect that the experience certificates given by the petitioners were found to be not true. They were alleged to persons employed through an independent agency and the certificates made them appear as though they were directly employed by the PGI. Even this statement is found to be highly doubtful as the counsel for the petitioners points out that the statement was filed on 22.05.2009 and the verification relating to the certificates issued by them itself was sought through a letter dated 26.08.2009. The petitioners have filed a replication to the written statement giving information also about the fact that PGI had responded to the query supporting the certificates already issued and that the petitioners were bona fide workers as Store Keepers at PGI during the relevant time. It is evident that the respondents were literally trying to find an excuse for non-selection and in the process, they were only exposing themselves about their murky conduct. 4. The conduct of the University leaves much to be desired. It is a waste of public fund if advertisement be issued for various posts without formation of any criteria for selection. It is also a waste of time and effort for persons who are made to appear for interview when the University was probably was not serious about conducting any interview or selecting any of them. Counsel for the respondent states that the University was keen to find that the petitioners were not hoodwinking the University into believing the false certificates. It would better describe their own conduct and betray their utter lack of seriousness in slighting the interviews who had shown up in right earnest, looking for Civil Writ Petition No.3969 of 2009 - 4 - appointment. With there are teeming millions of unemployed graduates in India, it is a pity that public bodies must approach the issue relating to unemployment with such a laid back attitude. The respondents' counsel states that the re-advertisement has been done and the petitioners will also be considered along with the others and the petitioners need not have to apply afresh. So be it and the respondents shall also not hold out against the petitioners the invalidity of any certificates. In the first place, the advertisement itself does not require any experience. If the petitioners had supplied such experience certificates, the respondent shall not state again set up the contention of what they have stated in the written statement for rejection of their candidature. I reject the written statement as a tissue of lies and the University shall now consider the applicants along with the other candidates that may apply for an advertisement that is proposed to be issued by the University. I find that the further recruitment was stayed by an interim order of this Court and needless to state that interim order still stand vacated and merge with this order. The petitioners' candidature will be considered on their own merits with reference to the qualifications required in the advertisement. The writ petition is allowed with cost assessed at Rs.10,000/- against the University. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 04.02.2010. sanjeev