CWP No.12833 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 11.2.2010 Om Parkash ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana etc. …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RKS Brar, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondents no.1 and 2 Mr.Varun Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.3 Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for respondent no.4 Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and has served Indian Air Force w.e.f. May, 1982 to May, 2002. State of Haryana issued advertisement dated 22.12.2006 inviting applications for various posts including one post of Junior Draftsman. The only post of Draftsman was reserved for Ex- serviceman General Category. The petitioner being an Ex-serviceman and claiming to be eligible applied for the said post. Respondent no.4 is a ward of Ex-serviceman. He also applied for the said post. Under the policy issued by the State Government, the preference is to be given to the Ex- serviceman and if no Ex-serviceman is available, then the post can go to the ward of the Ex-serviceman. Both the petitioner and respondent no.4 were called for interview. The result of the selection was declared on 1.8.2007. Respondent no.4 was selected for the post in question. The CWP No.12833 of 2007 (O&M) 2 petitioner has accordingly challenged the selection of respondent no.4 in this petition and has also sought a direction for his consideration for selection being an Ex-serviceman with preferential claim over respondent no.4. Respondents have filed their separate replies. It is pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the last date for receipt of application was 10.1.2007 and the candidate was required to possess the requisite qualification as on the cut off date. It is further stated that the petitioner has appended the experience certificate after the cut off date and even according to the certificate, he is ineligible as on the cut off date. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner did not annex the experience certificate alongwith the application. I have perused the advertisement issued by the respondents-State. Column No.16 deals with the documents to be attached with the application. Experience certificate is not one of the documents specified which was required to be attached with the application. To the contrary, one of the conditions in this clause is as under:- “The candidates are advised that the photocopies of the certificates/diploma/degrees should not be attached with the application form.” Relying upon the aforesaid condition, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that he was not under obligation to attach the experience certificate alongwith the application form, but the same was to be produced at the time of interview. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the experience certificate dated 10.4.2007. The cut off date i.e. the last date for CWP No.12833 of 2007 (O&M) 3 receipt of application was 10.1.2007 in the office of the Commission. Obviously, this certificate was not in existence as on the last date for receipt of application and thus could not have been produced alongwith the application. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that he was not under obligation to produce the experience certificate alongwith the application, the experience certificate relied upon by the petitioner (Annexure P-6) cannot be accepted as the same has been issued by the Er.Subhash Saini registered with M.C.Design Home Architect Engineer Valuer Planner Surveyor and Estimator wherein it is stated that the petitioner has worked with him from Jan.2004 to 10.4.2007. No specific date of joining the job has been mentioned. Under the advertisement, three years experience was required as on the last date for making application. In the absence of clear date of experience, it cannot be said with certainty that the petitioner was possessed of requisite three years experience as on the date of making application. In view of the above circumstances, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner, even if it is accepted that he could have produced the certificate on the date of interview. In this view of the matter, I find no ground to interfere with the selection of respondent no.4. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 11.2.2010 MFK