LPA 1637 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1637 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 26 .7 .2011 Union of India and others . Appellants Versus . Resham Singh and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Dr. Amarpreet Sandhu. , Advocate for the appellant Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for respondent no.1. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 20.5.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner- respondent Resham Singh was wrongly deprived of the benefit of 10 marks for the experience despite the fact that he has submitted requisite documents/ certificates. The first two certificates were not relevant and were rightly excluded from consideration. Out of those two certificates (P.1 and P.2), one certificate pertains to his former service as Clerk in Army HQ which was issued the Commandant, Command Hospital (Western Command) Chandigarh on 1.11.1982. The aforesaid certificate was not considered relevant for the purposes of experience on the post of Family Welfare Extension Educator. The second certificate relates to attending Lecturers/ demonstrations by him which was issued by the District Family Welfare Officer of Chandigarh Administration. LPA 1637 of 2010 (O&M) 2 The learned Single Judge has found that the two certificates were not to be given due weightage. The other two certificates were held relevant. According to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, the experience certificate dated 1.9.1986 (P.3), the petitioner was working in the Family Welfare Centre, Command Hospital, Eastern Command, Chandigarh since 24.12.1982 till the date of issuance of certificate, and he was entitled to award of 15 marks for this experience certificate because it showed experience of more than three years. The other certificate is dated 10.4.1987 (P.4) which showed that he was working in the Clinic of Col. (Dr.) R.K.Dutta (Retired) Former Commanding Officer, Command Hospital (WC) Chandigarh. Again the experience was more than three years and he would be entitled to another 15 marks. However, as per the criterion in the letter dated 7.8.1987 (Appendix 'B') the maximum marks for experience were 20. Accordingly, he has been held entitled to 20 marks instead of 10 marks awarded to him. On the basis of the aforesaid mistake awarding of 10 marks less than the marks which were required to be given, the writ petitioner- respondent becomes entitled to appointment against person with 59 marks namely Shri A.K. Kohli, respondent no. 8 and Shri S.K.Sharma, respondent no. 7 who had obtained 60 marks. Both the respondents would stand lower in merit. The learned Single Judge has also found that two of the respondents did not join on the post for which they were selected and accordingly no private respondent would need to resign to make room for the writ petitioner- respondent. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that there was mistake in calculation of marks under the head of experience and the fact LPA 1637 of 2010 (O&M) 3 that the writ petitioner- respondent deserved to be given 10 more marks we find that no room is left to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge. As a matter of fact with the induction of the writ petitioner- respondent in the select list and his consequential appointment, no difference would be made because out of 9 posts advertised, two persons who were higher in merit than the writ petitioner- respondent did not join the duty. 3. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the view that no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. We have put to the counsel for the appellant a fundamental question namely whether the experience certificates produced by the appellant raised any doubt with regard to their authenticity. The learned counsel has replied that there was no doubt entertained concerning authenticity of the documents. If that be so, then there was surely a mistake in calculation of marks which has been rightly pointed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no interference would be warranted. The appeal is without merit. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 26.7 .2011 Judge okg