IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.747 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.8.2009 Des Raj and others. -----Appellants Vs. Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing their writ petition seeking direction for permitting them to appear in the departmental Accountant Examination. 3. The appellants are working as Safai Karamcharis or Beldars in the office of Municipal Council, Rohtak. Under the provisions of Haryana Municipal Departmental Accountant Examination Rules, 1985, a departmental examination is held for appointment as Accountant. Rule 2 of the said Rules lays down the eligibility conditions of qualification and experience. LPA No.747 of 2009 Experience required is in dealing with payment of vouchers, maintenance of cash books, provident fund accounts, budgets and adjustment etc. in a Government office or in the office of a local authority. The appellants applied for the said examination, but they were held not to be eligible. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition was filed. 4. Learned Single Judge held that they could not be treated to have the requisite experience. It was observed:- “.....Concededly, the petitioners are working as Beldars and Safai Karamcharis. Their duties and responsibilities as Beldars and Safai Karamchari have nothing to do with the payment of vouchers, maintenance of cash books, provident fund accounts, budgets and adjustments etc. in the office of local authority. With the petition, neither any material has been annexed nor any averment has been made that on the post of Beldar or Safar Karamchari, the petitioners are dealing with the payment of vouchers, maintenance of cash books, provident fund accounts, budgets and adjustment etc. The petitioners are class IV employees and they have nothing to do with the aforesaid duties and they have no experience in dealing with the payments of vouchers, maintenance of cash books, provident fund accounts, budgets and adjustments etc.” 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on account of certain contingencies, the appellants gained such 2 LPA No.747 of 2009 experience, even though they were employed as Safai Karamcharis and Beldars and to that effect, certificates were issued to them by the Municipal Council, Rohtak, but the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Government rejected the same by assuming that class IV employees were not eligible. To support this submission, he made a reference to letter dated 1.12.2008, Annexure P-4. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that one person, similarly placed, was considered to be qualified, as per letter dated 15.9.1992, Annexure P-7. 7. We are unable to accept the submissions. Having regard to nature of jobs for which the appellants were deputed, it was not possible to hold that they were handling the work of accounts and gained the requisite experience. Certificates relied upon do not indicate that they were required to discharge such duties in any given situation for required period. As regard Annexure P-7, we are of the view that merely because some other person has been allowed to appear, did not confer any right on the appellants to claim eligibility, in absence of their having the requisite experience as per rules. No interference was, thus, called for with the view taken by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary in the impugned letter dated 27.3.2009, Annexure P-6. 8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 3 LPA No.747 of 2009 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 20, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 4