LPA No.167 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.167 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 Anjali Dangi and another ....Appellants. Versus Haryana Public Service Commission and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate ... Alok Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.12.2009 whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that vide advertisement dated 3.6.2009, the Haryana Public Service Commission, Panchkula, invited applications for filling up 359 posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical). The petitioners challenged the aforesaid advertisement on the ground, that the qualifications given in the advertisement were different from the one which LPA No.167 of 2010 2 were prescribed under the rules of the respondent – Department and therefore, they were ineligible to apply for the same. The appellants - petitioners are Engineers having degree of Bachelor of Electronics and Communication and claimed to be fully eligible for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), as per services rules of the respondents. The petitioners filed the writ petition impugning the aforesaid advertisement and prayed for quashing the same. 3. The writ petition filed by the appellants – petitioners was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 7.12.2009. Through the present appeal, the appellants have impugned the aforesaid order dated 7.12.2009 passed by learned Single Judge. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per the rule, candidates having Bachelor Engineering Degree or equivalent from any Indian University/Institute duly recognized by All India Technical Education, are eligible for the post of Assistant Engineer. As per learned counsel for the appellants, in the advertisement, degree recognized by Association of Indian University has been wrongly included while rule does not permit degree holder from the Institutes recognized by Association of Indian University. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that under the rule, for the post of Assistant Engineer, Electrical or Electronics candidate is required to have degree either in Electrical or Electrical and Electronics or Electronics or Electronics and Communication or Electronics and Tele-communication or Electronics and Electrical Communication Engineering. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the LPA No.167 of 2010 3 respondents deliberately in the impugned advertisement, Electronics and Communication and Electronics and tele-communications and Electronics and Electrical Communication did not include as eligible qualifications for the post thereby they deprived the candidates to appear in the examination. 6. Undisputedly, the appellants applied for the aforesaid post and their candidature was considered. Hence, they cannot challenge the advertisement thereafter on the ground that in the advertisement qualifications recognized by Association of Indian University are also included. The appellant cannot challenge the advertisement on the other ground also that some of the degrees eligible for the post as per the rule, have not been included in the advertisement as per the eligibility criteria. 7. We are of the firm view that this is for the Department to lay down or fix any of the degrees, which finds place in the rule as an eligibility criteria. The respondent – Department cannot be compelled to call for application from all the candidates having either of the degrees as given in the rules. Selection of any of the degrees/qualifications from the rules is sufficient compliance. 8. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merits and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 22.02.2010 sk.