C.W.P. No.6891 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6891 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.09.2011 Aman Dahiya ....Petitioner Versus Haryana Public Service Commission and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The prayer of the petitioner in the present petition is for issuance of direction to respondent No.1 to award the marks of experience to the petitioner and to re-frame the merit accordingly with a further prayer for issuance of direction to respondents No.2 to 5 to prepare the seniority list of Assistant Engineers. It was contended that the petitioner was not awarded any marks under the Experience and Higher Qualification. Secondly, the C.W.P. No.6891 of 2010 2 petitioner has submitted her first preference for Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam but as per the information derived from respondent No.1, she has been shown junior to the candidates who had even not opted as 1st preference for Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has pointed out that the cut off date for submitting the application form for the aforesaid post was 20.02.2004. In column No.10 of the said application form, a candidate was required to mention her qualification. In the said column under the heading : “Degree of the Examination passed”, the petitioner stated `M.E.’ In the said column under the heading `Marks secured’, the petitioner mentioned “Appearing”. As such, no marks could be given to her for this qualification. Further when the selected candidates secured equal marks in the interview, the merit list of such candidates was prepared on the basis of their date of birth and a candidate older in age was shown senior to the candidate younger in age in the order of merit. Thus, there is no merit in the argument so raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that no marks were granted to the petitioner for the higher qualification. Written statement has also been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5. The fact that the petitioner had given preference while other candidates, who have been placed senior to her, had not given the said option, in itself is not sufficient for placing her senior in the seniority list. There is no logic in this argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. As already discussed above, the merit list has been prepared in accordance with the marks achieved by the candidates and in case, a candidate has secured equal marks, the candidate senior in age has been C.W.P. No.6891 of 2010 3 placed senior to the candidate younger in age. No other ground was raised. Dismissed accordingly. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 30.09.2011 JUDGE gurpreet