REENA KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition has been posed to the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6-Ms. Neeru Rani as Hair and Skin Care Instructor in Industrial Training Institute (W) Bitna, Kalka.

(2.) An advertisement was issued by the official respondents for filling up a post of Hair and Skin Instructor in Dainik Bhaskar dated 07.09.2010. Last date for receipt of applications was 10.09.2010 (4 P.M.). Six applications were received. Since all the candidates fulfilled the requisite qualifications, they were informed that the interview would be held on 14.09.2010. Out of these six candidates, five appeared for interview while one was absent. After the interview result was declared and respondent No. 6 was selected on the post of Hair and Skin Care Instructor. Petitioner sought information of comparative merit of the candidates under the Right to Information Act and the criteria for selection fixed by respondents No. 3 to 5 along with the minutes of the meeting held on 14.09.2010 wherein the selection was finalized. On receipt of the information, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the appointment of respondent No. 6 on the ground that the respondents have not followed the criteria for selection and there is over-writing and tempering with the marks granted to the candidates. It is also alleged that the experience certificates of all the other four candidates have been rejected by declaring them to be false, which was with an intention to select respondent No. 6 on the behest and mala-fides of respondent No. 5, who is Principal of the Industrial Training Institute and had selected respondent No. 6 as she is sister of one of the employees working in the institute. Another ground, which has been taken for challenging the selection of respondent No. 6, is that she does not fulfil the requisite experience and, therefore, her selection and appointment deserves to be quashed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the comparative merit, which was prepared by the Selection Committee (Annexure P-2), contends that the petitioner was more meritorious candidate and had obtained more marks than respondent No. 6 but she has not been selected on the ground that her experience certificate was rejected. His further contention is that respondent No. 6 has only four years, 3 months and 26 days experience in all excluding the period of training which has also been included by the respondents to make it more than the minimum requisite experience as per the advertisement. He has referred to the experience certificates appended with the writ petition as Annexures to P-5 to P- 10 in support of this contention. He contends that the experience, which respondent No. 6 had gained during her training when she did her National Trade Certificate and Teachers Training Certificate Course, cannot be counted as the same is not provided for in the advertisement. Counting of the said period by the respondents for making respondent No. 6 eligible for selection cannot sustain and, therefore, the selection of respondent No. 6 deserves to be quashed.