Experience gained in a private institution cannot be treated as training from a recognized university or experience in a government/semi-government organization for the purpose of awarding selection marks unless the institution meets the specific criteria defined in the recruitment rules.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“a) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the selection of the respondent no.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

b) A writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued and thereby directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner.”

Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that a process was initiated by the respondent-Department to fill-up the post of Lecturer, School Cadre (New) under the Physically Handicapped Quota on contract basis in the Education Department. Out of the subjects for which the posts were advertised, 17 posts were for the subject of Commerce., including 4 posts for Orthopedic Handicapped candidates. The petitioner being eligible to apply under the said Quota, applied and in terms of Annexure P-3, scored 12.05 marks. As there were other candidates more meritorious than him, he was not offered appointment by the respondent-Department. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the denial of appointment to the petitionefr is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. He submitted that in terms of Circular Dated 28.08.2017 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was entitled for marks under Clause 10, which deals with ‘Training’ and Clause 11, which deals with ‘Experience’. Learned Counsel drew the attention of the Court to Annexure P-2 appended with the petition and submitted that it was apparent from said Experience Certificate that the petit ioner had worked in the Maharishi Vidya Mandir Kuthar, Nadaun and thus, the petitioner was entitled for grant of 1 mark, for 6 months training related to the post and denial thereof is bad in law. Learned Counsel further submitted that assuming that the said period was not to be treated as a training period, then also the experience gained by the petitioner should have been taken into consideration under Clause 11 and adequate marks should have been allotted to him. Accordingly, he submitted that as the petitioner has been arbitrarily denied marks under Clauses 10 and 11, present petition be allowed by quashing the selection list and by directing the respondents to grant marks under Clauses 10 and 11 and, thereafter, offer appointment to the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General and learned Counsel for the private respondent have argued that there is no merit in the case. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that herein, the petitioner was grantedH marks by the Selection Committee, to which he was entitled to. He submitted that in terms of Circular (Annexure P-4), one mfark was to be allotted for training in case the candidate had six months prior training related to the post applied for from a recognized University-Institution. However, Annexure P-2 appended with the petition by the petitioner does not amount to training, as the petitioner in terms thereof had worked as a Part Time PGT, in the subject of Commerce/ Economics. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that under Clause 1 1 of the Circular, a candidate is entitled for grant of marks in case of experience upto a maximum of two years in Government/Semi Government Organizations relating to the post applied for in the manner prescribed therein. But, the petitioner had imparted Part Time PGT Service in Maharishi Vidya Mandir Kuthar, Nadaun, which neither is a Government nor a Semi-Government Organization. Accordingly, he submitted that as the petitioner was not entitled to marks under Clauses 10 and 11, the Selection Committee rightly did not grant any marks to the petitioner under the said Clauses. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the selected candidates were selected on merit and there was no occasion for disturbing their appointments which were effected in