The central legal point established in the judgment is that the selecting authority cannot deviate from the provisions in the advertisement and cannot imply conditions that are not explicitly provided.

Ajai Lamba, J.

1. Lakhwinder Kaur has approached this Court by way of filing this civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner as JBT teacher, after giving the benefit of four marks for experience, as per the terms of the advertisement and criteria displayed at the time of interview by respondent No. 2 (Chairman, District Primary Teachers Selection Committee, Patiala-cum- District Education Officer, Patiala).

2. The question posed before this Court is whether the respondents can ask for experience, after obtaining the required qualification, although in the advertisement, no such stipulation has been made ?

3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents advertised 7230 posts of JBT teachers in April 2000, in Education Department, Punjab (Primary Cell). Advertisement has been placed on record as Annexure P- 1. From Patiala district, 51 posts were to be filled from out of Backward class category. Other details are not being given as there is no dispute in regard to the other categories.

4. The petitioner passed B.A. and B.Ed. examination and thereafter she passed M.A. and M.Ed. examination as would be evident from certificates placed on record as Annexures P-2 to P-5. The petitioner has the experience of serving as Punjabi teacher in S.D. Kanya Vidyalya, Ropar from 16.05.1993 to 31.06.1997. The said school is recognized educational institute. The experience certificate placed on record as Annexure P-6 has been signed by the District Education Officer. The petitioner being eligible in terms of advertisement applied for the post of JBT teacher from Backward class category. The petitioner received call letters in response to which the petitioner appeared for interview.

5. The criteria had been displayed on the notice board which provides that the marks were divided as marks for academic qualification which was the percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in 10+2 and B.Ed. One mark was provided for higher qualification of M.Ed. Besides this, 5 marks were assigned for experience i.e one mark for every year of experience, subject to a maximum of 5 marks. The facts as stated above are not disputed. Only dispute is in relation to the experience of the petitioner.

6. The relevant merit has been given out in para No. 11 of the petition. At Sr. No. 15, Kuldeep Kaur has been shown to have obtained 55.21 marks whereas the petitioner has been shown to have obtained 54.27 merit marks. Claim of the petitioner is that in view of experience certificate Annexure P-6, the petitioner is entitled to 4 additional marks. If those marks are given, the petitioner would be well within the list of selected persons in accordance with her merit position.

7. The only objection of learned counsel for the respondents is on the basis of the plea taken in para No. 2 of the preliminary objections.

8. Contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the experience of the petitioner could not be considered because she served in the school and got experience while she had not passed her B.Ed. In such circumstances, the experience certificate had to be ignored. Gist of the plea is that the petitioner should have gained experience after completing her education viz. B.Ed. It, however, remains the admitted position that if the experience certificate is taken into account, the petitioner would be entitled to four additional merit marks.

9. I have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the documents to which reference has been made. In the advertisement Annexure P-1, in regard to experience, in para No. 14, the following has been provided by the respondents :-

`Experience certificate should be from a recognized school and should be counter signed by the District Education Officer.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Daljit Singh v. Punjab State Ele