C.W.P.No.1454 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.1454 of 2010 Date of decision : 19.12.2011 Mahavir Singh ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER *** Present : Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr.Madan Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1-State. Mr.H.N.Mehtani, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.N.Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.3. *** MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral) The petitioner prays that writ in the nature of certiorari be issued to quash the impugned selection and consequent appointment of respondent No.3 for the post of Mining Officer (Group-B) in the department of Mining and Geology Department, Haryana. The petitioner applied for the said post in response to an advertisement issued by the respondents on 14.08.2009. The essential qualifications prescribed for the said post were given out as follows:- i) B.Sc in Mining Engineering or Diploma in Mining Engineering from the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad or M.Sc. In Geology or equivalent qualification. ii)Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard. The petitioner, being fully eligible, applied and claimed that he was more meritorious than the selected candidates and pleaded that he has C.W.P.No.1454 of 2010 2 been unduly left out from the process of selection as his experience was ignored. The respondents had adopted the following criteria while considering the candidature of respective candidates for the said post:- 1. Personal Achievements 40 marks a) Educational qualification: 25 marks i) B.Sc in Mining Engineering/Diploma in Mining Engineering from Indian School of Mines Dhanbad/M.Sc Geology Third Division Second Division First Division 05 marks 07 marks 10 marks ii) Post Graduate degree in Mining Engineering Third Division Second Division First Division 05 marks 07 marks 10 marks Iii) Ph.D/Any other relevant qualification 05 marks b) Experience 10 marks One marks per completed year of experience in the relevant field after attaining the basic qualifications upto the closing date subject to maximum of 10 marks C) Published works 05 marks Publication work of high standard in journals of National and International repute. One mark will be given for each publication in National Level Journals and two marks of each publication in International journals. 2. Interview 60 marks The interview will be conducted through oral discussion and questioning. The questions and discussion will be directed to ascertain the personal qualities, knowledge, awareness, intelligence, presentation, expression, poise, bearing articulation & speaking ability etc. 60 marks are assigned for the interview with the following break up: i) Knowledge, awareness, outlook & general interest etc. 20 marks ii)Intelligence, initiative, decision making, expression,l presentation etc. 20 marks Iii) Poise, bearing, behaviour, adaptability, articulation & other qualities 20 marks For the convenience of awarding marks and realistic assessment, a candidate is to be categories as under by the Expert Advisor and marks to be awarded by the Commission as shown against such gradation for (i), (ii), and (iii) above: Very Good 14-20 marks Good 7-13 marks Average 1-6 marks C.W.P.No.1454 of 2010 3 According to the petitioner, he has obtained 65.67% marks out of the total prescribed of 100 while the selected candidate-respondent No.3 has obtained 70.33. Now his solitary grievance is that since he was a holder of Ph.D degree and acquired the experience during the subsistence of this course which spanned over for a period of six years, this should be evaluated towards the experience of the petitioner to award him marks appropriately. He has referred to Annexures P-5 & P-6, which are the certificates issued by the Reader and the Chairman, Department of Geology, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, certifying that the petitioner during the course of his doctoral thesis had worked in various capacities including as a teacher for under graduate and post-graduate classes to contend that this was sufficient experience which ought to have been considered by the respondents. The respondents have filed the reply and have stated that the petitioner does not deserve any consideration as he was lesser in merit than respondent No.3 who was having more experience for which adequate marks were awarded to him. Further, it is stated that the experience which he acquired during the doctoral course cannot be considered for simple reason that column No.12 of the application form clearly spelled out the “experience in employment” and this column was left blank by the petitioner by stating that it was not applicable. For the purposes of reference, Clause 12 of the application form is extracted as under:- “ 12. If you have rendered service in Government/semi-Government or private institution, full details be given.” Thus, there is no ambiguity in the information solicited by the C.W.P.No.1454 of 2010 4 respondents and which information was not given by the petitioner as he did not have any experience in service in Government, semi-Government or private institution. No doubt, he is a holder of degree of Ph.D but this experience which he acquires during the doctoral thesis cannot be considered or compared with the requirement of the respondents who were specific in their demand. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner was given the benefit of marks while evaluating the educational qualifications and noticing the fact that he is the holder of Ph.D degree, he was given five marks as per the stipulation and criteria. In this eventuality also, the petitioner cannot claim dual benefit for this degree. If he claims to be Ph.D then he has been compensated appropriately while evaluating his education qualification but the experience that he acquired during the course of his doctoral thesis which incidental to the achievement of such a degree, cannot be offset against the requisite experience of employment which was specifically described in column No.12 of the application. This being the sole bone of contention, I am of the opinion that the respondents rightly ignored this experience of the petitioner which he gained while doing his doctorate and were right in not awarding any mark to the petitioner under this head. Learned counsel for the petitioner with emphasis stated that no expert has been consulted to consider whether such experience he has acquired during the course of his doctoral thesis could be considered to be relevant for the purposes of employment or not. I am not inclined to accept this argument as it is always up to the employer to lay down the specifics of employment and the experience in the C.W.P.No.1454 of 2010 5 shape of eligibility conditions. If column No.12 is to be seen, it is unambiguous that the respondents were looking for an experienced candidate who had acquired some experience in serving a Government/semi-Government/private undertaking. It is also settled principle of law that the Courts cannot substitute their opinion in place of the competent authority or experts especially when the demand of the employer is specific regarding the requisites of employment. The prayer is, therefore, rejected. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that for the reasons which have been stated above, the instant petition is held to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER ) December 19, 2011. JUDGE mamta