BHARAT BHUSHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letter Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 14.7.2010 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No. 12179 of 2010, filed by the appellant/writ petitioner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the selection of Sunita Rani respondent No. 5, as Senior Scientific Assistant(Chemistry).

(2.) FEW facts material to the controversy may first be noticed. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission -respondent No. 4, advertised various posts of different departments, vide advertisement No. 15/2007 dated 7.12.2007 and those posts included two posts of Senior Scientific Assistant (Chemistry) in the Police Department (hereinafter referred to as "the post"). Being eligible, the appellant -petitioner applied for that post. He claimed that he fulfilled all the qualifications. His application was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill the condition of one year experience in Scientific Laboratory. He preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 6204 of 2009. In that writ petition, a direction was issued that he be provisionally interviewed by respondent No. 4. However, the same was finally dismissed, vide judgment dated 19.10.2009, on the ground that he failed to secure marks adequate to merit selection. He secured 37.36 marks whereas respondent No. 5 secured 45.56 marks. After the result of the selection was published in the newspaper on 10.7.2009, he sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") from the official respondents about the experience gained by respondent No. 5 and about the qualification of the subject expert, who was present at the time of interview. That information was not supplied to him and he approached the State Public Information Commissioner and it was only thereafter that the requisite information was supplied. As per that information, respondent No. 5 worked in International Testing Centre from 1.9.2005 to 31.3.2006 and, as such, she had not completed one year's experience which was necessary for appointment to the post. However, in the Certificate submitted by her, along with the application, it was mentioned that she worked in the said International Testing Centre from June, 2005 to June, 2006. Thus, the Certificate, so submitted by her, gave birth to an argument that it is forged and fabricated and has been manipulated by her only for getting herself selected to the post. As per the information so furnished, the subject expert, at the time of interview of respondent No. 5, was Sh. M.K.Goyal, Director, FSL, who is not an expert in the subject of Chemistry and is an expert in Biology. Thus, the interview so conducted, for the selection of respondent No. 5, is illegal. The appellant claimed that on these grounds, the selection of that respondent is liable to be set aside.

(3.) IN the writ petition, respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement wherein they admitted that Dr. M.K. Goyal was the subject expert at the time of the interview of respondent No. 5. However, according to them, he had sufficient knowledge of all the divisions in Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, including Chemistry Division. Moreover, the decision with regard to the selection of a candidate was to be taken by all the members of the committee and not by the subject expert alone. Regarding the experience of respondent No. 5 for the purposes of her selection to the post, they pleaded that besides her having worked in International Testing Centre for seven months i.e. from 1.9.2005 to 31.3.2006, she also worked in National Resource Centre for Forensic Psychology, Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar, Gujrat, as per the Certificate issued by them, from 19.6.2006 to 15.12.2006 and she also worked in Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, from 28.3.2007 to 28.12.2007, as per the Certificate issued by the said Laboratory. Therefore, she had the requisite experience of one year.