Monika v. Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University And Others

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.08.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20522-2019 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20522-2019 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.08.2019 Monika ... Petitioner

Versus

Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** AMIT RAWAL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside merit list dated 07.01.2019 (Annexure P-3) for the post of Assistant Microbiologist along with all consequential proceedings including selection and appointment of respondent Nos.7 and 8.

Mr. Sangwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that awarding of 4.75 marks to Poonam Ranga/respondent No.7, under column of Publication in relevant field and three marks under column of Experience to respondent No.7, was not in consonance with UGC Guidelines as well as under column of quality of publication.

It was next contended that viz-a-viz awarding of three marks under column of Experience, respondent No.7 was not entitled to the same

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.08.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20522-2019 (O&M) in view of Rule 10 of the UGC Guidelines, which provides that for the purpose of counting of past services for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS, the candidate should be Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional organization. By drawing the attention of this Court to application form of respondent No.7, (Annexure P2, Colly), respondent No.7, at the time of submission of application, was working on the post of PGT Biology in Directorate of School Education, Haryana. It is submitted that service in school education cannot be counted as experience for the aforesaid post.

As regards awarding of marks under publication, respondent No.7 was entitled to two (2) marks instead of 4.75. Though concerted effort has been made in believing this Court to form a different opinion than the one by the Selection Committee, reliance has been laid to the criteria, publication and application forms. In my view, these are the disputed questions of fact as detailed record is required to be summoned and proved in accordance with law and same cannot be appreciated in the writ Court, accordingly, petitioner is relegated to avail remedy of civil suit.

The Writ Petition stands disposed off.

( AMIT RAWAL ) JUDGE 17.08.2019 Yogesh Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No