Civil Writ Petition No.6881 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 25, 2009 Jasbir Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. B.S.Tanque, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to treat his experience certificate obtained by him while working on post in Vocational Education Department to be at par with Education Department. The petitioner prays for such direction to enable him to apply for the post of Principal in the Education Department which has since been advertised. Presently, the petitioner is working as Lecturer, Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Rohtak w.e.f. 22.4.2009. Earlier, the petitioner had served under the Vocational Education Department from 8.3.1995 to 21.4.2009 as Vocational Instructor. He was teaching commerce to students of +2 classes. The Civil Writ Petition No.6881 of 2009 : 2 : petitioner possesses a post graduate qualification being M.Com. from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. He has done Masters of Education Degree from the same University. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal are as under:- “a) Educational Qualifications-MA/M.Sc./M.Com Second Division and BT/B.Ed. or its equivalent. b) Experience for the post of Lecturer-8 years teaching experience as a Master/Lecturer out of which at least 2 years experience should be Lecturer of a Government recognised School. c) Knowledge of Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard.” These are the qualifications for the post advertised in the year 2008. The petitioner had applied for this post in the year 2007 also, when his candidature was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the requisite experience having worked on the post of Lecturer Accountancy and Auditing of Vocational Education Department. In the reply filed, it is stated that the petitioner is not fulfilling the condition of requisite experience as prescribed for the post of Principal. Mr.Rathee would point to Clause (b) of the advertisement, noted above, which clearly lays down that in the case of Headmasters, eight years teaching experience of Master, out of which two years experience should be in the administrative capacity and in case of Lecturer, again eight years experience as Master/Lecturer, out of which at least two years experience should be as Lecturer in Government/Recognised school. As per the respondents, the experience certificate, Civil Writ Petition No.6881 of 2009 : 3 : Annexure P-3, annexed by the petitioner would not satisfy the requirement of experience as provided in the advertisement on the basis of rule position. The experience certificate of the petitioner dated 3.4.2008 shows that he is now working as a Lecturer, but was described as an employee of the department from 8.3.1995 to 30.9.2003. Even if it is construed that he has experience as Lecturer, two years out of this should be as Lecturer in the Government/Recognised school. The petitioner, as such, is not having the requisite experience to be eligible for appointment to the post of Principal. The reference made by the counsel for the petitioner to a decision of this court in Civil Writ Petition Nos.3878 and 6972 of 2008 would not help him as those were the cases where the language teachers were seeking equivalence of their experience gained as language teachers with that of trained graduate teachers. Relying on the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.10926 of 2007, the court viewed that petitioners therein could not be held ineligible to be considered for the post of Principal. The facts in the cases relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are entirely different and, thus, would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. September 25, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE