Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.2227 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: November 16, 2012 Neelam …..Appellant versus The State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, JUDGE Present: Mr.R.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Chopra, Advocate for the appellant Mr.J.S.Puri, Addl.
Advocate General, Punjab .A.K.SIKRI, C.J.: (Oral) The appellant belongs to Mazhbi caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab.
She is possessing the qualification of B.A., B.Ed.
and is also having M.A.(History).The appellant, in response to advertisement dated 21.10.2006 issued by the respondents advertising 431 posts of Head Master/Head Mistress, applied for the said post.
The qualifications, which are prescribed for being eligible to be considered for the said post, are: - “Degree of any U.G.C.recognized University with B.T.of B.Ed.
or Senior Basic Training with the following experience:- (1) In case of M.A.or M.Sc.
with M.Ed – Six years LPA-2227-2011 -2- (2) In case of M.A.or M.Sc.
with BT/B.Ed.
– Seven YeaRs.(3) In case of B.A.or B.Sc.
or B.Co.with B.T.or B.Ed.
– Eight YeaRs.(4) In case of D.P.Ed.
or B.P.Ed.
– Eight years from the date Physical Education was introduced compulsory in the school.
(5) In case of B.A.or B.Sc.
or B.Co.with M.Ed.
– Seven Years.”
There is no doubt that the appellant is fulfilling these qualifications.
The only dispute is about the experience.
Since appellant is B.A., B.Ed.
with M.A.(History).in her case, 7 years’ experience for the post of Head Mistress was required.
This experience of 7 years had to be till the date when applicant submitted application for appointment to the said post or before the last date of receipt of application, which is clear from the following stipulation:-
“10. The candidate must possess prescribed Educational Qualification and Professional Qualification for the post applied for on OR before the last date of receipt of application.
The cut off date for all intents and purposes for eligibility determination is the date on which the application is filed and not any later date such as the date of any document verification or the date of issue of appointment letter of joining.”
LPA-2227-2011 -3- The last date for submission of the applications was 8.11.2006.
The appellant applied for the said post some time between 26.10.2006 to 8.11.2006, as these were the dates prescribed during which the applications for the aforesaid posts could be submitted.
In order to show that she had requisite experience of 7 yeaRs.the appellant produced 3 experience certificates, namely, Annexure P-7, Annexure P-8 and Annexure P-9.
Annexure P-7 is certificate dated 16.11.2006 as per which appellant had been working in the Girls Middle Mission School, Dhariwal (Gurdaspur) since 1.3.2002 till the date of said certificate.
In fact, she had been teaching in the said school even thereafter.
As the experience was to be calculated till the date of making application, thereafter, the appellant submitted two more certificates both dated 19.3.2007 which are Annexures P-8 and P-9.
As per Annexure P-8, the appellant had been working in the said school from 1.9.1999 to 28.2.2002 as JBT Post (Unaided Post) (sic).Other certificate (P/9) dated 19.3.2007 shows that she had been working from 1.3.2002 to 15.3.2007.
These certificates were rejected by the respondents as, presumably, the official respondents thought that the appellant wanted her experience to be calculated till 15.3.2007, though the last date for submission of applications was 8.11.2006.
However, what is ignored is that as per these certificates even when experience is counted till 8.11.2006, she had completed more than 7 years of service, as she was in service since 1.9.1999.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the applications were to be submitted online and experience certificate was to be produced at the time of counselling and that is LPA-2227-2011 -4- the reason that experience certificates dated 19.3.2007 were produced at that time.
On the basis of Annexures P-8 and P-9, it is clear that the appellant had requisite experience as on the date of filing application or on the last date of submission of the said application.
We, therefore, are of the opinion that the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the petition of the appellant shows that the learned single Judge has taken into consideration only one experience certificate dated 19.3.2007 (P/9) which shows the appellant teaching from 1.3.2002 to 15.3.2007.
The mistake has occurred as the other certificate as per which she had been working in the aforesaid school since 1.9.1999 has not been taken into account by the learned single Judge.
We, thus, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge.
The writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner is hereby allowed subject, however, to the respondents’ verifying the genuineness of the experience certificates (Annexures P-8 and P-9).In case these certificates are found to be genuine after verification, the appellant shall be considered for the aforesaid post.
Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
( A.K.SIKRI ) CHIEF JUSTICE November 16, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) pc JUDGE