IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 12017 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 12, 2010 Ranjeet Singh …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 14.1.2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in OA No. 135/HR/2008, holding that the applicant-petitioner lack necessary qualification for appointment to the post of Fireman. In the advertisement dated 29.11.2003 (P-3), for appointment to the post of Fireman, the necessary qualifications required were – (a) Martic from recognised Board; and (b) Training from State Fire Service or any other recognised institute in fire fighting. The applicant-petitioner is a matriculate but could not answer the qualification of training from State Fire Service or any other recognised institute in fire fighting. The Tribunal has returned a categorical finding that he did not possess the training in fire fighting at the relevant point of time as CWP No. 12017 of 2010 per the requirement of the advertisement dated 29.11.2003 (P-3). Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has placed reliance on a certificate issued by the National Institute of Industrial Security. According to the certificate the applicant-petitioner has attended Assistant Security Officers Course on Industrial Security, Fire Safety and First Aid from 5.9.2003 to 4.12.2003. Another document relied upon by the applicant-petitioner is an experience certificate issued in his favour by the Fire Guard Engineers. Both the certificates cannot be considered to answer the description of qualification required to possess i.e. the fire fighting training from State Fire Service or an institute of repute. The Tribunal has accordingly rightly held that the applicant-petitioner lacks necessary qualification and could not be considered for appointment to the post of Fireman. Accordingly, we are of the view that the writ petition does not merit admission and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. For the reasons aforementioned, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) July 12, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2