IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4866 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.02.2011 Manju Bala ...Petitioner Versus Pt B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner had appeared for appointment of stenotypist. She was considered but was not selected. She has now filed this writ petition to challenge the appointment of respondents No. 3 to 6, who have been selected for the post and appointed. The only and sole grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been properly assessed and not given marks for the experience. Even if half mark is given to her for her experience, she will come in the select list as she will score more marks than the last selected candidates. Counsel for the respondents, however,would submit that the petitioner cannot be given any mark for experience as at the time of submitting application, she had mentioned in the relevant column that she had not worked anywhere. Subsequently, she had produced the experience certificate, which was not annexed with the application form, as per the requirement. To explain the anomaly, the Civil Writ Petition No. 4866 of 2010 -2- counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of submission of the application form, the Fast Track Judge where the petitioner was employed on contract basis, was not available and hence she could not submit the experience certificate. Since she was not then working, she had mentioned 'No' in the column where she was asked to disclose the details of earlier service. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner did not attach any certificate of experience alongwith the application form, which could be taken into consideration. Since this was the requirement projected and certificate was supposed to be annexed with the application, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in not considering the certificate while evaluating the merit of the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed without any any merit. February 28, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE