Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Vijay Yadav vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission & ... on 3 November, 2009
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.1069 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 03.11.2009
Smt. Vijay Yadav.
-----Appellant
Vs.
Haryana Staff Selection Commission & another.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present:- None.
---
ORDER:
1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition challenging the process of selection to fill up the posts of Female Supervisors in Women and Child Welfare Department, Haryana advertised vide notice published on June 07, 2008.
2. Case of the appellant is that after issuing original advertisement, the Commission published short-listing criteria, prescribing cut off percentage for interview for the eligible candidates. The said condition was not in the original advertisement.
LPA No.1069 of 2009 2
3. Learned Single Judge upheld the criteria following earlier order in C.W.P. No.9323 of 2009 Sunita Rani v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula & others.
4. None appears for the appellant. We have perused the record.
5. Contention raised in the grounds of appeal is that in view of experience gained by the appellant, percentage of marks had no nexus with selection of best candidate. The short-listing criteria fails to give weightage to experience.
6. We are unable to accept the submission. Short-listing criteria adopted by the Commission to short list eight times of candidates of the advertised posts, is an accepted mode of selection process. In the original advertisement, a provision was made for adopting appropriate short listing criteria during the selection process. Percentage of marks can be basis for such short listing. Unless the qualification laid down is irrational, laying down of criteria is in the purview of the Selecting Body.
7. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge.
8. The appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner has made any representation, as has been noted in the impugned order of learned Single Judge, this order LPA No.1069 of 2009 3 will not be a bar to consideration of such representation, in accordance with law.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
November 03, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH )
ashwani JUDGE