CWP No.6861 of 2007 1 In the Punjab and Haryana, High Court at Chandigarh. Decided on April 28,2008. Veerpal Kaur --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and others --Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehtab.S.Gill Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain. Present: Mr.Surinder Garg,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr. P.C.Goyal, Senior D.A.G.Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr.S.S.Bhinder,Advocate,for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash appointment given to respondent No.5 on the post of Lecturer in Humanities and Management with respondent No.4 and also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, seeking a direction to respondent No.4 to offer appointment to the petitioner to the aforesaid post CWP No.6861 of 2007 2 instead of respondent No.5 in accordance with rules and regulation as the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.5. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Regional Engineering College,Jalandhar, advertised certain posts of Professors, Assistant Professors & Lecturers including one post of Lecturer in English of General Category and one post of Humanities and Management of General Categrory for Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering & Technology, Bathinda. As per the advertisement, essential qualification and experience was required as per norms of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Humanities Group and submitted her application form on 13.7.2001 to respondent No.4. After formal scrutiny by the committee, five candidates were short- listed and were called for interview including the petitioner. The petitioner had appeared for interview on 23.8.2001., but result was not declared. However, one Suman Bala, who was the Personal Assistant to the then Principal of the College was given the appointment letter for the post of Lecturer in Humanities Group without declaring any result. According to the petitioner, a criteria was laid down for awarding one mark for each year of relevant experience in Engineering Colleges/ University/ R&D Organizations/ Public Sector Industry/ Public Ltd. Co./Pvt. Ltd. Co. The petitioner had submitted certificates with her application form from the year 1996 till 13.7.2001 showing her experience and qualifications and alleged that the petitioner had been given 35.05 marks for basic qualification, 4 marks for experience and 8 marks for interview. In this manner, her total merit was assessed at 47.05 marks, although it was claimed that the marks for basic qualification should have been awarded at CWP No.6861 of 2007 3 35.20 instead of 35.05. It was also pleaded that respondent No.5 has been awarded 47.10 marks. Whereas, had the petitioner been awarded 35. 20 marks for the basic qualification instead of 35.05 marks, she would have got total of 47.20 marks instead of 47.05 marks and in that eventuality, she would have more marks than respondent No.5 and would have got the appointment. It was also pleaded that selection of Suman Bala was challenged both by the petitioner and respondent No.5, who filed two separate Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos.5660 of 2005 and 3859 of 2003, which were allowed on 20.11.2006 by a Division Bench of this Court and the appointment of Suman Bala was quashed on the ground that as per Bye Law 3.3 of the Engineering College, the experience referred to in the application form pertains to teaching experience only. Therefore, the marks awarded to Suman Bala towards experience which were not referable to her teaching were deducted and her appointment was quashed. However, it was ordered by the Division bench that Engineering College shall now proceed to issue fresh offer of appointment in favour of most meritorious candidates out of the remaining candidates (after excluding Jagwinder Singh and Jyoti Kumar Chandel) in terms of process of selection conducted by it on 23.8.2001. The main grievance of the petitioner is that marks in respect of her basic qualification have not been appropriately awarded, which according to her should have been 35.20 and not 35.05. On notice of motion, reply has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent Nos 3 and 4 separately. So far as respondent CWP No.6861 of 2007 4 Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, it is alleged that they are performa party. In the reply fled by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, it is admitted that marks of the petitioner have been increased pertaining to her basic qualification from 35.05 to 35.20, but so far as marks of experience are concerned, which have earlier been awarded as 4, has been reduced to 3 in view of the decision rendered in the case of Sandeep Kumar v. State of Punjab in C.W.P.No. 3859 of 2003 decided along-with CWP No. 5660 of 2005- Veerpal Kaur v. State of Punjab, filed by none else than the petitioner, on the ground that as per the afore-stated decision, the experience has to be only pertaining to teaching, therefore, the experience of the petitioner which was not relating to the teaching has not been considered and as per the experience certificates attached to the writ petition as Annexures P-5 to P-10, total teaching experience was assessed less than 3 years for which only three marks could have been awarded to the petitioner and which are counted in her merit . The petitioner refuted the averments made in the written statement filed by respondent Nos 3 and 4 by way of replication and alleged that the answering respondents had no right to alter merit list prepared by Joint Selection Committee and have wrongly reduced the marks for the experience.In this case, the answering respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have categorically averred in para No.10 with regard to teaching experience of the petitioner.The averments of para 10 of written statement filed by respondent Nos 3 and 4 are extracted as below:- “ That the contents of the para 10 of the writ petition are wrong hence denied. Since the Hon'ble High Court has considered only the teaching experience so the experience of the petitioner which is not relating to the teaching has not been considered and as per the experience CWP No.6861 of 2007 5 certificates Annexures P-5 to P-10 annexed with the petition are total teaching experience comes to less than 3 years and for that 3 marks have been awarded to her and counted in her merit”. In reply to the above paragraph in the replication, the averment made by the petitioner is extracted as below:- “ That the contents of Para 10 of the written statement are wrong and hence denied. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have no right to alter the merit list prepared by the Joint Selection Committee and they have wrongly reduced the marks for the experience of the petitioner from 4 to 3 marks. The perusal of Annexures P-5 to P-10 shows that the petitioner has the experience of more than 4 years”. The answering respondents had categorically stated that as per certificates Annexures P-5 to P-10 pertaining to the experience of the petitioner, her total teaching experience comes to less than 3 years for which three marks have been awarded,whereas this averment has not been categorically denied to the effect that the petitioner possessed teaching experience of 4 years or that only teaching experience cannot be taken into consideration. In fact, a vague reply has been given that the answering respondents had no right to change the merit list prepared by Joint Selection Committees and they have wrongly reduced the marks obtained by the petitioner. CWP No.6861 of 2007 6 In view of the afore-stated factual aspect and the fact that marks for only teaching experience have to be awarded in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No.5660 of 2005 Veerpal Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, the petitioner who was not having 4 years teaching experience could not have been awarded 4 marks and has rightly been awarded 3 marks for 3 years teaching experience. Accordingly, total merit of the petitioner comes to 46.20 which is obviously less than respondent No.5, who has secured 47.10 marks and is higher in merit than the petitioner. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the selection of respondent No.5. Therefore, the present writ petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge April 28.4.2008 ( Mehtab S.Gill ) RR Judge