Aman v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 05.12.2022 Aman .....Petitioner

Versus

Haryana Staff Selection Commission .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

***** ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the final result dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure P-8) to the extent that against the roll number of the petitioner it has been mentioned as "Not Eligible" on the ground that his experience is less. 2.

Pleaded case of the petitioner is that he is fully eligible for the post of Painter under BCB category as he had almost 3 years experience as Painter with Eicher Polaris Private Ltd., Gurgaon and he had also been paid salary for the said period. Further there is no defect either in his ITI certificate. 2.1.

Pursuant to advertisement No.01/2020 dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) published by respondent-Haryana Staff Selection Commission for various posts including the post of Painter, category No.9, petitioner applied for the same. He is an ITI diploma holder. Written examination was conducted and petitioner qualified it. Final result (Annexure P-8) was declared by respondent No.2 on 14.11.2022, but candidature of the petitioner was rejected because he was not

-2having 3 years' experience as Painter since in his experience certificates word 'Painter' has not been mentioned. Hence, the present petition. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On advance service, learned State counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the petition. 5.

I have heard rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

6.

From the record appended with the writ petition, it appears that petitioner was non-suited essentially on the ground of lacking requisite work experience as a Painter, and that too, without making any verification from his previous employer. Petitioner has appended a copy of experience certificates (Annexure P-3 to 5 & 7) which reflects that he had worked with Eicher Polaris Private Ltd. from 01.06.2015 to 26.03.2018. On a Court query, it transpires that the petitioner worked as a Painter for almost 3 years. Therefore, prima facie it appears that he possesses 3 years of work experience as a Painter though it was not specifically mentioned on the certificates that he worked as Painter. Had the needful been done, petitioner perhaps would have been found eligible. 7.

Be that as it may, writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to verify the work experience of the petitioner. In case, it is found that he had indeed rendered work as a Painter, benefit thereof be given to him to determine his eligibility.

8.

Needful exercise be carried out within a period of 2 months from today.

-39.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN MONGA) JUDGE December 05, 2022 ashish Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No