AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to a selection process undertaken by respondents No.3, 4 & 6-the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPSSC) in view of requisition issued to it by respondent No.2- Director Department of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, respondent No.5 was selected and appointed as Chief Inspector (Boilers), Class-I (Gazetted). Petitioner, a participant in the same selection process, feels aggrieved, as according to him respondent No.5 did not satisfy essential qualifications No.(ii) prescribed in the advertisement or in other words, respondent No.5 did not have requisite 10 years experience.

(2.) The case.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner mainly contended that respondent No.5 did not have 10 years' experience in the Managerial capacity in the field of design/construction/erection/operation/testing/repair/maintenance or inspection of Boilers or in the implementation of the Boilers Act, 1923 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. This was essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement. The certificates of experience of respondent No.5 appended with his application form fall short of satisfying the requisite E.Q.II. Reference was made to the experience certificates of respondent No.5 to point out the short comings, which as per learned counsel make him ineligible for the post for want of requisite experience in terms of the advertisement. Learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.5 refuted the submissions made for the petitioner and justified selection and appointment of respondent No.5. It has also been strongly projected that respondent No.5 was in possession of the requisite essential qualifications. Certificates of experience furnished by respondent No.5 were duly scrutinized and examined by the Committee including the Expert Member. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission elaborated and justified the selection process. According to learned counsel, the duly constituted committee justly scrutinized the certificates of participating candidates and held the petitioner and respondent No.5 eligible for the post. Pursuant to the directions issued in this case on 4/9/2025, learned counsel also produced the record. Referring in detail to the certificates produced by respondent No.5, it was strongly urged that he was justly held to be in possession of requisite experience by the duly constituted committee.