IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 07, 2009 1. Civil Writ Petition No.17187 of 2007 Santosh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 2. Civil Writ Petition No.17167 of 2007 Suman .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.5 (in CWP No.17167 of 2007). Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.7 and 23 (in CWP No.17187 of 2007). None for the remaining respondents. . . . CWP No.17187 of 2007 [2] AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of two petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition No.17187 of 2007 titled `Santosh vs. State of Punjab & Others’ and Civil Writ Petition No.17167 of 2007 titled ‘Suman Lata vs. State of Punjab & Others’ as they involve similar questions of law and facts. For reference, Civil Writ Petition No.17187 of 2007 is taken up. Santosh wife of Surjit Kumar has approached this Court by way of filing this civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing selection (Annexure P-8) for the post of Cutting, Tailoring and Embroidery Instructor. Prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the said post while considering her experience with the Government Polytechnic College, Mohali. Detailed facts need not be noticed in so much as the only issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in response to the Advertisement (Annexure P-5), the petitioner CWP No.17187 of 2007 [3] furnished all the required documents. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is having the relevant qualification. The only dispute raised, as per the admitted case, is in regard to experience of the petitioner which was a condition given out in the Advertisement itself. So as to cut short the issue, relevant portion of Advertisement (Annexure P-5) reads as under:- “iii) Should possess atleast two years practical experience in an organization registered under the Factories Act 1948 or atleast two years teaching experience in the line in a Government Institution or an Institution recognized by the Government.” The case of the petitioner is that in view of the latter part of the above extracted portion, the petitioner furnished Certificate dated 24.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) which completely satisfies the condition of eligibility for the said post. The case of the respondents to the contrary is that the certificate (Annexure P-4) is wholly inadequate as it does not disclose the number of days served in a week by the petitioner or number of hours served by the petitioner in a day. In this view of the matter, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent- State that stand of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner cannot be CWP No.17187 of 2007 [4] faulted with. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. Other than the extracted portion above, Para 10 of the Advertisement is also relevant to be considered which reads as under:- “10. Pay must be mentioned in the experience certificate, without pay experience will not be accounted for. Experience certificate issued by any private firm/concern must be verified by the shop/labour Inspector of the area concerned. Experience Certificate issued by private or recognized/affiliated educational institutions must be verified by the concerned District level officer.” It transpires that the respondents had made it clear that pay must be mentioned in the experience certificate and without pay, experience would not be accounted for. Certificate (Annexure P-4) furnished by the petitioner disclosed the following:- “This is to certify that Ms.Santosh W/o Surjit Kumar resident of House No.376, Ward No.10, Near Khera, Morinda, Distt. Ropar is working as Instructor (Cutting and Tailouring) in Community Polytechnic Wing of this Institution from 13.7.2000 to 26.4.2001 and 1.9.01 to till date on hourly basis (Rs.15/- per hour).” The Certificate only mentions remuneration paid to the petitioner per hour. It does not disclose as to how many hours a day the petitioner worked and the exact remuneration paid to the petitioner, per month. The condition imposed in regard to the practical experience requires two years CWP No.17187 of 2007 [5] teaching experience in the line in a Government Institution or an Institution recognised by the Government. The Certificate, Annexure P-4, might disclose that petitioner served for two years but it does not disclose as for how many days in a week the petitioner worked or for how many hours each day the petitioner served. If the petitioner had been working only 2-3 hours a day and infrequently, surely she did not fulfil the required experience criteria. The Certificate is inadequate in relevant contents. It does not disclose the practical experience of the petitioner. Practical experience is a relevant criteria for giving employment on the post. Certificate (Annexure P-4) does not detail the work experience as required. In view of the above, the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Certificate, Annexure P-4, satisfies the conditions laid in the Advertisement, cannot be accepted. In Civil Writ Petition No.17167 of 2007, the certificate furnished by the petitioner has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. The certificate does not even give out the remuneration paid to the petitioner on hourly basis and therefore, is even more sketchy. In my considered opinion, it does not satisfy the CWP No.17187 of 2007 [6] condition contained in Para 10 of the Advertisement read in conjunction with sub-para iii) that has been extracted above in earlier part of the order. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the action of the respondents. The petitions are dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 07, 2009 JUDGE avin