Manju Ninaniya And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP 26901 OF 2018 DATE OF DECISION: 27.04.2022 Manju Ninaniya and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Present :

Mr. Gursharan Singh Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Additional AG, Haryana.

Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate with Mr. Sharan Raju, Advocate for respondent No 2. ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) Petitioners herein, inter alia, seeks issuance of a writ in nature of mandamus/certiorari to direct the respondents to consider them for the post of Block Cluster Coordinator advertised by Haryana State Rural Livelihood Mission vide Annexure P-1, as they are eligible for the same.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners, being eligible, applied for the post of Block Cluster Coordinator (BCC). They qualified written test and were later called for interview. Upon checking documents, the concerned authorities raised objection that Experience Certificates of the petitioners are not genuine. The petitioners also submitted separate representations but to no avail. Hence, the instant petition.

SHALINI BHATIA 2022.05.10 19:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

3.

I have heard rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties.

4.

In the return filed by respondents No.1 and 2, following stand has been taken in paras No.12 and 13 of the preliminary submissions:

"12. That it is during such scrutiny that an objection was raised over the Experience Certificate produced by petitioner No.1 and 3 as to be not genuine. The petitioner No.2 however did not produce his experience certificate and therefore necessary procedure qua him was never complete. 13.

That upon their representation, the experience certificates of petitioners No.1 and 3 were in fact rechecked by the Scrutiny committee and the said petitioners were still found to be ineligible for the BCC post in view of the deficiency in their experience required for the said post." 5.

The said stand taken by the respondents remains uncontroverted as no replication has been filed. 6.

In the premise, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.

7.

Dismissed.

APRIL 27, 2022 (ARUN MONGA) Shalini JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2022.05.10 19:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.