AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant and respondent No. 9 were the candidates for the post of Lecturer in Hindi in Shri L.N. Hindu College, Rohtak. To fill up that post applications were invited. In the criteria fixed for selection, it was specifically stated that for experience, maximum ten marks shall be awarded i.e. two marks each for a year upto the maximum period of five years. It was further stated that for attending NSS and Scouts/Guide Camp for ten days three marks shall be awarded. Marks were also earmarked under various other heads. The Selection Committee as per the given parameters gave the following marks to the appellant and respondent No. 9 :--
(See Table below)
The appellant was awarded ten marks for teaching experience and against marks earmarked for attending NSS Camp, she was not awarded any mark. To the contrary, for experience no mark was awarded to respondent No. 9, however, she was given three marks for attending NSS Camp. Overall, appellant secured 58 marks and respondent No. 9 was selected for securing 61 marks.
Appellant challenged that selection by filing CWP No. 1620 of 2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.3.2010. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that three marks ought to have been awarded to the appellant for attending NSS Camp. To say so, reliance was placed upon certificate (P7), issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh. Relevant portion of the certificate reads thus :--
This is to certify that Ms./Mr. ___ Manju ____of D.A.V. Girls College Kosli (Rewari) has successfully completed the Orientation/Refresher Course for NSS Programme Officers held from 17.6.1996 to 26.6.1996 at Palampur
It is specifically stated that the appellant had successfully completed orientation/refresher course for NSS Programme. It is nowhere stated that she had attended Camp for a period of ten days.
The learned Single Judge by placing reliance upon that certificate came to a conclusion that the appellant was entitled to get three marks reserved for attending ten days NSS orientation course.
During pendency of this appeal, respondent No. 9 by filing an application placed on record some additional information, which she got under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. By moving an application dated 12.10.2011 (A5), following information was sought to be supplied by respondent No. 9 :--
As per the criteria for selection of lecture in the Government aided privately managed colleges memo No. 8/104-2006 CIV (3) dated 21.11.07 (copy enclosed for ready reference) 3 marks are entitled for NSS (Camp of 10 days at least) column V (iv). In this regard please clarify whether this weightage may be given to a person who has attended an Orientation Course for NSS programme officers.
Whether NSS Camp for volunteers/students and Orientation Course for Programme Officers are equivalent.
In response thereto, vide letter dated 31.10.2011 (A6), it was specifically stated that NSS Camp for volunteers/students and Orientation Course for Programme Officers are not equivalent. It was further stated in letter dated 21.3.2011(A6) that additional weightage can be given only to those persons who have actually attended ten days NSS Camp as a student.
So far as the appellant is concerned, she had not attended any Camp. She has only undergone some refresher course for NSS Programme Officers. In view of above, she is not entitled to get benefit of weightage of three marks.
Not only as above, it is an admitted fact that when moving application against the post she had not mentioned that she had attended NSS Camp. No proof of the same was placed on record. If that is so, after going through the process of selection, she cannot raise objection that she was entitled to get that weightage.
Learned Single Judge further rightly said that two additional marks were wrongly given to the appellant against marks fixed for experience. It was noted that maximum ten marks can be awarded to a candidate for experience of five years, whereas, the appellant did not possess five years teaching experience when she moved an application for selection against the post.
Counsel for the appellant has failed to controvert the above said fact at the time of arguments. If that is so, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified.
No case is made out for interference. The appeal stands dismissed.