CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7741 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7741 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 24 , 2010 Ravinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1, 5 & 6. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the notification issued by the Haryana Government dated 15.12.2008 for recruitment to the post of Professor in the subject of Shalya Tantra in respondent No.6/ College. As per the Rules, the candidate is required to possess 10 years teaching experience, 5 years out of which should be the experience as a Reader. The said condition was incorporated in the advertisement dated 17.3.2010. As per the petitioner, this was contrary to and in contravention of the norms/instructions issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicines, controlled by the provisions CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7741 of 2010 -2- of Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970. As per the norms laid down by the Central Council of Indian Medicines, 10 years experience as Lecturer in the concerned subject is required for the recruitment to the post of Professor. There is no requirement of having the experience as Reader. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner was interviewed. In the reply filed, it is stated that the petitioner has been considered, but not found suitable as he could not be able to score 40% marks in the Viva-voce, which was the minimum requirement. Reference is also made to his qualification to show that he does not fulfill the essential qualification, but primarily he has not made the grade on the basis of merit after due consideration. Faced with the situation, the counsel for the petitioner pleads that he has come forward to challenge the Rule and would require adjudication thereof so that his right for future selection is not put to prejudice. Since the petitioner in this case has not been able to make the grade on merit, there would not be any need to go into the challenge about the the validity of the Rules or power of the Haryana Government to frame rules contrary to the norms laid down by respondent No.4. This plea of the petitioner is left open for him to agitate if need so arises in future. The present writ petition is, however, dismissed. September 24, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika I JUDGE