Punjab-Haryana High Court
Savita Arora vs Maharishi Dayanand Univ. And Anr on 11 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004162
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M) -1- 2024:PHHC:004162
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.
2. Facts of the case in brief are, the first respondent/University
advertised certain posts, including one post of Technical Assistant
(Software Support), vide advertisement no.1 of 2012, Annexure P-1. The
requisite qualification and experience for the post were as under:
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
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004162
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M) -2- 2024: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
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004162
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M) -3- 2024:PHHC:004162
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
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004162
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M) -4- 2024:PHHC:004162
marks will make her score more than that of the selected candidate, who
scored twenty-five marks.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the University
has deliberately not taken into account the petitioner's experience
certificates, since it intended to select the second respondent for the post
in question. Otherwise, there is no reason for not considering the same.
All the documents/certificates were duly uploaded by the petitioner along
with the application form; and the originals as also the NOC from her
employer, were produced at the time of interview. Only after verifying the
same, she was interviewed and deliberately not selected. It was because
the University wanted to favour the second respondent, who could not
have been selected/appointed on the post for want of requisite experience.
4. Learned counsel for the University, on the contrary, contends
that the selection has been carried out in a fair manner; no mala fides have
even been alleged in the process against anyone. None of the Interview
Board members has been impleaded as a party to the petition. Based on
the affidavit filed by the Registrar on behalf of the University, he
contends that the reason for not giving marks for experience to the
petitioner was her failure to produce original certificates and NOC from
the employer at the time of interview. The experience certificates of the
second respondent are genuine, as they were duly verified by the Deputy
Commissioner under whom he was working, vide letter dated 28.8.2012,
Annexure A-4. Besides, so far as academic qualification of the second
respondent is concerned, he obtained B.Sc. Degree in Information
Technology in 2007, with first division, from Sikkim Manipal University;
and Advanced Diploma in Software Engineering from Aptech Computer
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004162
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M) -5- 2024: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.
5. Heard.
6. As per the facts apparent on record, the second respondent had
the requisite qualification as well as experience for the advertised post.
His advanced diploma in software engineering obtained in 2003, was
considered equivalent to the required qualification of "First class BCA or
First class 3-year Diploma in CSE/ECE from State Technical Board or
equivalent" by the Interview Board, which consisted of academics and
subject experts in the relevant fields. This Court has no reason to differ
with the same, nor any material has been placed on record which could
even prima facie indicate the experts opinion was wrong. It is settled law
that matters of equivalence of qualification must be left to the experts. A
reference can be made to the Supreme Court judgment in Anand Yadav
and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2021) 12 SCC 390.
Relevant paragraph no.35 of the same reads as under:
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004162
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M) -6- 2024:PHHC:004162
35. We say so in view of the fact that matters of education
must be left to educationists, of course subject to being governed by
the relevant statutes and regulations. It is not the function of this
Court to sit as an expert body over the decision of the experts,
especially when the experts are all eminent people as apparent from
the names as set out. This aspect has received judicial imprimatur
even earlier and it is not that we are saying something new. We may
refer to the pronouncement in Zahoor Ahmad Rather in this behalf
which has dealt with the dual aspects: (a) it is for the employer to
consider what functionality of qualification and content of course of
studies would lead to the acquisition of an eligible qualification; and
(b) such matters must be left to educationists.
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
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004162
CWP No.8018 of 2013 (O & M) -7- 2024: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.
7. In view of this discussion, there is no merit in the petition and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
11.1.2024
A w Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004162
7 of 7
