SBCWP5645/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5645/1997 {Dhanpat Rai Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others} Date of Order ::: 09.02.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Amardeep Atwal, Counsel for petitioner Shri Hari Bareth, Deputy Government Counsel for respondent No.1 Shri S.N. Kumawat, Counsel for respondent No.2 #### By the Court:- This writ petition was filed by petitioner Dhanpat Rai Sharma challenging selection of respondents No.3 to 7. Contention raised by Shri Amardeep Atwal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, is that respondents No.3 to 7 produced bogus experience certificate, while petitioner produced certificate of his working with Executive Engineer, Survey & Quality Control Division, Public Works Department of the Government of Rajasthan. The respondents No.3 to 7 produced certificates of their working with private SBCWP5645/1997 // 2 // Contractors, which could not be accepted as genuine. Certificate of experience issued by private contractors cannot be considered satisfying requirement of advertisement issued by respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission. It is submitted that respondents No.3 to 5 were selected in the main list and respondents No.6 and 7 were included in reserved list, while the petitioner, who was more meritorious, was not selected. The selection of respondents No.3 to 7, on the basis of experience certificate of their working with private contractors, may therefore be declared illegal and the same may be quashed and set aside, and respondents may be directed to give due weightage of experience certificate issued by a Department of the Government of Rajasthan, and accordingly give him appointment. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for respondent RPSC, has opposed the writ petition and submitted that writ petition was filed way back in year 1997 and private respondents were also appointed in 1997 itself. Suitability of candidates could only be adjudged by experts; the respondents called the experts of the relevant subject SBCWP5645/1997 // 3 // and, in their presence, the candidates were interviewed and only suitable candidates were selected on the basis of their qualification. Experience was one of the components of suitability and experience means the experience of working and not necessarily the work should have been done with the Government alone. The members of the Interview Board were satisfied with regard to the suitability of candidates not only on the basis of their experience but also their educational qualifications. The respondents No.3 to 7 were found more meritorious than the petitioner, therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner now at this stage after selection, cannot be accepted. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record, I find that in advertisement, that was issued by the respondent RPSC, apart from the educational qualification, the applicants were also required to submit experience certificate of two years working in the field of testing of Soil/Aggregates etc., after candidate had acquired Degree of M.Sc. (Geology) and M.Sc. (Chemistry). The advertisement did not insist that such SBCWP5645/1997 // 4 // experience should be of working with Government. The plea set up by the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted more particularly when respondents No.3 to 7 were appointed long ago and now well settled in their life. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//