Punjab-Haryana High Court
Monika Bahri And Ors vs Panjab Univeristy And Ors on 14 December, 2023
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161073-DB
2023:PHHC:161073-DB
1 LPA No. 482-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No. 482 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.12.2023
Monika Bahri and others .....Appellants
versus
Panjab University and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY, JUDGE
Present : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Mohinder S.Nain, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
****
RITU BAHRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (oral)
CM No. 1142-LPA-2022
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 160 days
in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands allowed.
Main appeal
The appellants are aggrieved with the direction issued by the
learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 07.12.2019 whereby the writ
petition filed by respondent No.3- Narinder Singh had been allowed and a
direction has been given to the respondent-University to award 1 mark to the
petitioner (now respondent No.3) for work experience of 4-9 months, afford
opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders including the petitioner (now
respondent No.3) likely to be affected by change of merit, re-determine their
merit and pass consequential appropriate order.
2. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge
shows that the petitioner (now respondent No.3) after appointment gave a
representation dated 03.02.2014 that he has not been given any mark for his
experience. Thereafter, respondent No.3 got information under the Right to
Information Act on 27.06.2017 (Annexure P-7) wherein the break-up of
awards to be given commensurate with the work experience was disclosed.
Thereafter, respondent No.3 made another representation on 10.07.2017
(Annexure P-8) for awarding him one mark for the experience he got at the
time of appointment and he had not been awarded any mark as per the
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161073-DB
2023:PHHC:161073-DB
criteria reflected in Annexure P-7 dated 27.06.2017. Immediately, thereafter
respondent No.3 filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge which
was allowed on 07.12.2019.
3. It was not the case of the respondent-University before the
learned Single Judge that the break-up of marks to be given vide Annexure
P-7 dated 27.06.2017 was not correct. In paragraph-9 of the judgment,
learned Single Judge has specifically observed that the application of
respondent No.3 was routed through proper channel and he was entitled to
be given one mark for work experience regardless of the No Objection
Certificate as he had completed 7 months and 5 days as on the last date
which was extended vide corrigendum contained at Annexure P-2.
Respondent No.3 had completed 7 months and 5 days work experience as
per Annexure P-2. Since the application of respondent No.3 has been moved
through proper channel, he had a right to be given one mark on the basis of
work experience and it was the duty of the respondent-University to follow
the criteria of awarding mark as per Annexure P-7.
4. As far as the grievance of the appellants is concerned that they
have not been heard before awarding of one mark, this Court has given a
patience hearing to learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal and
therefore, opportunity of hearing has exhausted before this Court. Had it
been a case of wrong facts reflected in the Letters Patent Appeal, we would
have interfered in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.
Since the main appeal has been dismissed, all the pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
14.12.2023
ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161073-DB
Whetherreportable Yes/No√
2 of 2
