Punjab-Haryana High Court
Govind Ram vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 19 December, 2022
Author: Arun Monga
Bench: Arun Monga
122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-29181-2022
Date of Decision:19.12.2022
Govind Ram .....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 setting aside final result dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) and detailed result (Annexure P-7) for the post of Workshop Machinery Operator (Category No.23) to the extent of non-selection of the petitioner for the post under BCA category.
2. My attention has been drawn to the eligibility conditions for the post of Workshop Machinery Operator (Category No.23) which, inter alia, envisages that persons applying should have ITI Certificate in Welder/Turner/Machinist Trade along with 2 years' experience in the relevant field.
3. Pleaded case of the petitioner is that he is fully eligible for the post of Workshop Machinery Operator as he had completed his training with ABB India Ltd. for the period from 16.09.2016 to 15.09.2017 and from 04.10.2017 to 03.10.2018 and he had also been paid salary for the said period. Further there is no defect in his certificates.
ASHISH 2022.12.20 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29181-2022 -2- 3.1. 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 Workshop Machinery Operator, category No.23, petitioner applied for the same. His certificates are also genuine. Written examination was conducted and petitioner qualified it. Detailed final result (Annexure P-6) was declared by the respondent on 14.11.2022, but candidature of the petitioner was rejected because he was not having 2 years' experience as Workshop Machinery Operator. Hence, the present petition.
4. On advance service, the learned State counsel appears and submits that if the petitioner moves a representation a decision will be taken by the competent authority, either way, on it by passing a speaking order.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner also seeks decision on the representation to be moved by the petitioner, as suggested by learned State counsel.
6. Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to seek return by any of the respondents as no further proceedings and/or pleadings are required.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to move a representation within a period of two weeks and in that event the respondents to look into the same and pass an administrative order, giving specific reasons thereof, in accordance with law.
8. Let the needful be done as expeditiously as possible, but in any case not later than 6 weeks.
ASHISH 2022.12.20 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29181-2022 -3-
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
December 19, 2022
ashish
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ASHISH
2022.12.20 12:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document