CWP No. 18691 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CWP No. 18691 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.09.2011 Sarita Kadyan ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Priyanka Dalal, AAG, Haryana for the respondent State Mr. Raman B Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 3 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. Prayer made herein is for quashing of the proceedings of the Selection Committee meeting held on 11.07.2008 (P6), vide which, respondent No. 3 was selected on the post of Matron as well as for quashing of the appointment of respondent No. 3. In the present case, the appointment of respondent No. 3 has been challenged on the ground that respondent No. 3 does not have the requisite five years post qualification experience as stipulated in the CWP No. 18691 of 2008 2 advertisement dated 10.04.2008 (P1). It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 3 did her Bachelor of Arts from M.D. University, Rohtak in April, 2004. As such, at the time of issuance of advertisement dated 10.04.2008 (P1), respondent No. 3 had only four years of experience and respondent No. 3 was not eligible for the said post. Further, the experience certificate (P9) obtained by respondent No. 3 through RTI (P11), seems to be nothing but a procured document as the name of respondent No. 3 does not find figure in the list of the employees of M K Convent Sr. Secondary School, Mungeshpur (Qutubgarh) Delhi for the years 2003 onwards. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, has pointed out that as per the advertisement (P1), the educational qualification required for the post of Matron was Bachelor's degree with an experience of five years of Wardenship. Respondent No. 3 possess the required educational qualification of Bachelor's degree and five years experience of Wardenship from January, 2003 to January, 2008 in M K Convent Sr. Secondary School, Mungeshpur (Qutubgarh) Delhi. The requirement was only a bachelor's degree with five years experience of Wardenship and not that the experience should be after the required educational qualification of Bachelor's degree. State has also filed their reply. As per the said reply, the matter qua the experience certificate (P9) was enquired into and that the Principal of the said school duly intimated vide her letter dated 18.10.2010 (R3/5) that the experience certificate was duly issued to respondent No. 3 and that the same was correct and she had actually worked as a Hostel Warden in CWP No. 18691 of 2008 3 the said School from Ist January, 2003 to 31st January, 2008 on ad hoc basis. Heard. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the questions that require to be determined, are whether:- a)whether the experience gained by respondent No. 3 prior to the required educational qualification can be counted towards the experience for the post of Matron or not? b) Whether the experience certificate (P9) produced by respondent No. 3 was genuine or not? With respect to Ist question as to whether the experience gained prior to the required educational qualification, can be counted towards the requisite experience or not, is already settled by the Apex Court in the case of A K Raghumani Singh and others v. Gopal Chandra Nath and others 2000(4) SCC 30, by observing as under:- “7. The word 'with' has been defined in the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1993), diversely the meaning depending on the context in which it is used. But when it is used to connect two nouns it means “accompanied by; having as an addition or accompaniment. Frequently used to connect two nouns, in the sense 'and'- 'as well'.'' Applying the definition to the eligibility criteria, it is clear that it requires the prescribed educational qualification and 6 years experience as well. Given the plain meaning of the phrase, the Court would not be justified in reading a qualification into the conjunction word and imply the word CWP No. 18691 of 2008 4 'subsequent' after the word 'with'. 8. Even on a point of principle, it would be unreasonable to distinguish between the nature of the regular service required, as if the service in the grade subsequent to the obtaining of the necessary education qualification were qualitatively different from the service in the grade prior thereto. In fact no such case has been made out.” In the present case, as per the advertisement dated 10.04.2008 (P1), the qualifications prescribed for the post of Matron reads as under:- “2. Qualifications required : (a) Bachelor's degree with an experience of minimum five years of wardenship in well reputed school/college.” Here too, the requirement is bachelor's degree “with” experience of five years of Wardenship. The said advertisement is dated 10.04.2008. Respondent No. 3 did her bachelor's degree in April, 2004. She worked in the said school from January 01, 2003 to January 31, 2008. Thus, she had one year of experience while she was doing her Bachelor of Arts and four years experience after acquiring the said prescribed educational qualification. On a specific query, it was brought to the notice of the Court that respondent No. 3 completed her bachelor's degree through Distance Education from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. Thus, the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of N.Suresh Nathan and another v. Union of India and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 564 as relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, will not CWP No. 18691 of 2008 5 help as the issue involved in that case was decided on the basis of the practice extending over a long period and therefore, Hon'ble the Supreme Court did not think it proper to upset the scheme. Moreover, the same was not feasible as the experience was to be counted for the next higher post to be filled by promotion as is evident from the observation made in the aforesaid judgement which was to the following effect:- “.......The entire scheme, therefore, does indicate that the period of three years' service in the grade required for Degree-holders according to R.11 as the qualification for promotion in that category must mean three years service in the grade as a Degree holder and, therefore, that period of three years can commence only from the date of obtaining the Degree and not earlier. The service in the grade as a Diploma- holder prior to obtaining the Degree cannot be counted as 'service in the grade with a Degree for the purpose of three years' service as a Degree holder.” Whereas, in the present case, the post to be filled is of a Matron by way of direct recruitment. The requirement of experience as Matron does not distinguish between the experience gained before, during or after the degree was acquired. Thus, in view of the above, respondent No. 3 was duly qualified for the said post. With respect to the second issue that whether the experience certificate produced by respondent No. 3 was genuine or not, the same too stands proved and verified. Reply has been filed by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 verified the experience certificate (P9) issued by the said school vide confidential letter dated 14.10.10. The Principal, Mother CWP No. 18691 of 2008 6 Khazani Convent School, Mungeshpur, Delhi vide letter dated 18.10.2010 (R3/5) intimated as under:- “With reference to your letter No. MNSS/(PE) 10/11308 dated 14.10.2010. We are hereby clarifying the information regarding Smt. Usha Sharma Experience Certificate point wise:- 1. Yes, the experience certificate issued to Smt. Usha is correct and this has been issued by the school on 31.03.2008. 2. Yes, Smt. Usha Sharma w/o Shri Devender Sharma has actually worked as a Hostel Warden in this school from Ist January, 2003 to 31st January, 2008 on ad hoc basis. 3. Yes, the school has a hostel for boys and girls approximately 60 children are staying in the hostel.” The argument that the name of respondent No. 3 does not find figure in the list of the employees of the said school (P11) has no merit in view of the fact that the list (P11) only pertains to the regular employees of the school, whereas, respondent No. 3 was admittedly working on ad hoc basis. As such, her name does not find mention in the list (P11). In view of the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 & 2 and Annexures R1 and R 2, placed on record along with the reply, there is no doubt that respondent No. 3 was actually working as a Hostel Warden in the said school from January 01, 2003 to January 31, 2008 on ad hoc basis. CWP No. 18691 of 2008 7 Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 21.09.2011 mohan