Writ petition challenging a university selection to the post of Technical Assistant (Software Support), alleging wrong award of experience marks. The court upheld equivalence decided by subject experts and accepted the Registrar's affidavit that originals were not produced; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M)
2024:PHHC:004162
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
203
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M) Date of Decision : 11.1.2024
Savita Arora ..... Petitioner
versus
Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and another
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate, for respondent no.1/University Mr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate, for respondent no.2
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL):
This petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the selection and appointment of the second respondent on the post of Technical Assistant (Software Support); a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to appoint the petitioner on the post by taking into account her experience and granting due marks for the same as per the criteria.
4. Technical Assistant (Software Support)
Qualification
First class BCA or First class 3-year Diploma in CSE/ECE from State Technical Board or equivalent.
Experience
Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.20 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M)
-22024:PHHC:004162
3 years experience in software support/handing/development for an enterprise (preferrably a university or its equivalent size).
The applicants were required to apply online and upload scanned copies of the matriculation, graduation and other degrees as well as experience certificates, etc. A printout of the application form was to be sent to Superintendent-In charge (Establishment) in the University. It was also stipulated that original testimonials must be brought by the candidates for verification at the time of interview. The ones who were in employment were required to submit applications through proper channel, or ‘No Objection Certificate’ from their employer at the time of interview.
2.1. The petitioner applied for the post and uploaded the required documents, and was called for interview along with other candidates. She appeared before the Interview Board and produced her experience certificates too, but was not selected; instead, the second respondent was selected for the post. On seeking information from the University, the petitioner came to know that she had been awarded only two marks for experience; whereas, the second respondent/selected candidate was awarded eight marks for experience, though was not qualified for the same.
2.2. The candidates are entitled to two marks for each year’s experience and maximum of eight marks as per the criteria, which is as under:
Experience –
Upto 3 years of experience in relevant field- marks nil Marks beyond above experience - 2 marks per year Maximum marks - 8
It is also provided in the advertisement that the requisite experience
should be full-time in the relevant field, and will be counted only from the
Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.20 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M)
2024:PHHC:004162
-3-
date of acquiring the qualification.
2.3. It is claimed that the petitioner obtained Diploma in Computer Science Engineering (CSE) in the year 2000, with first division, and thereafter gained experience as Assistant Programmer in Logitech Infoways, from 5.2.2004 to 6.3.2006, and also as Information Assistant in the office of Civil Surgeon, District Health and Family Welfare Society, Sirsa, from 8.3.2006 to 26.9.2007 and 27.9.2007 to 11.6.2012, Annexure P-3 Colly. Accordingly, she has the requisite experience of about eight years after acquiring the essential qualification, and is entitled to award of maximum eight marks on that account as per the criteria, whereas she was given only two marks.
2.4. It is also claimed that the second respondent did not have the requisite experience, and was wrongly given eight marks for the same. He obtained B.Sc. degree in Information Technology on 5.12.2007, and the experience certificates submitted by him are for working as Computer Operator; firstly, in the office of Civil Surgeon, Rohtak, from 1.10.2001 to 9.11.2005, and thereafter as Software Developer in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, from 10.11.2005 to 24.2.2012. Therefore, his experience prior to acquiring the essential qualification, could not have been taken into consideration for award of marks. It is also contended that his experience certificates are bogus, as the same are un-dated and without any reference number. On this account also, the same could not have been considered valid for awarding marks of experience to him.
2.5. In this factual background, the instant petition was filed claiming that the petitioner is entitled to eight marks on the basis of experience certificates, and adding these to her total score of twenty-one
Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.20 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M)
-42024:PHHC:004162
marks will make her score more than that of the selected candidate, who scored twenty-five marks.
Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.20 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M)
-52024:PHHC:004162
Education in 2003, with first division. This is apparent from the application form, Annexure A-1, as well as the Diploma Certificate, Annexure A-2, which was considered equivalent to the requisite qualification of first class BCA or three year diploma in Computer Science Engineering (CSE) from the State Technical Board. He has further contended that the Interview Board consisted of senior academic authorities as well as subject experts, i.e., Dean, Academic Affairs, Director, Computer Centre and Director, School of Computer and Information Science. This Expert Body has considered the second respondent’s diploma equivalent to the requisite qualification, and no exception can be taken to it. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to be appointed on the post.
Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.20 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M)
-62024:PHHC:004162
Besides, the second respondent’s experience certificates as Software Developer in the office of Deputy Commissioner, from 10.11.2005 to 24.2.2012, were duly verified by the officer himself vide letter/certificate dated 28.8.2012. And the experience was gained after obtaining the advanced diploma in software engineering in 2003, which has rightly been counted by assigning eight marks on that basis, as per the criteria. Therefore, it cannot be said that any experience prior to acquiring the essential qualification has been taken into consideration for award of marks to him.
6.1. Further, there is dispute on facts so far as claim of marks to the petitioner on the basis experience certificates and submission of NOC by her are concerned. On the one hand, the petitioner has averred that the original certificates as well as the NOC were duly submitted at the time of interview, the same were verified and only thereafter she was interviewed. Had the petitioner not produced the original certificates/documents and the same had not been verified, she would not have been allowed to appear in the interview. Therefore, the University’s stand cannot be
Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.20 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M)
-72024:PHHC:004162
accepted. On the other hand, the University Registrar in his affidavit has stated that the original testimonials were not produced by the petitioner at the time of interview, therefore, she could not have been awarded marks for experience and it was rightly not done.
6.2. In face of this apparent factual dispute regarding production of the original certificates at the time of interview, merely because the petitioner was interviewed by the Board, it cannot be assumed that the original certificates were also produced by her which were verified too. Had it been so, there was no reason for the Interview Board not to give her marks for experience on that basis. The entire selection was conducted fairly, and no mala fide or wrongdoing on the part of members of the Interview Board has been alleged by the petitioner, nor has any one of them been impleaded as a party in the petition. Therefore, this Court has no reason to doubt the assertion on oath by the Registrar that the originals were not submitted by the petitioner at the time of interview. Nor is there any valid reason to raise a presumption of wrongdoing against the University or the members of Interview Board, that too in the absence of any relevant material or allegation.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE
11.1.2024
A��w���
Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:
Yes/No Yes/No
Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.20 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the selected candidate's Advanced Diploma in Software Engineering was equivalent to the advertised qualification of first class BCA or 3-year CSE diploma?
Whether the petitioner was entitled to eight experience marks despite the University's assertion that she failed to produce original certificates and NOC at interview?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anand Yadav and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersRelied on¶6
(2021) 12 SCC 390 · Who else cites this
Savita Arora
Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak
Second respondent (selected candidate)
Tribhuvan Dahiya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
