' The petitioner while employed as Steno typist with official respondent continued his studies and was able to do his M.A. In. Economics from the University of the Punjab as also MBA (Finance). He also obtained some diploma and did some Computer course in Account etc. Official respondent issued an .Advertisement in the Press for appointment of Assistant Finance Adviser (Deputy Director Finance) in BS.18. The petitioner as well as respondent No,3 and one other filed applications in response to the said advertisement. Respondent No,3 was selected. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Report and para-wise comments were called for which were filed by the official respondents. The case was admitted to regular hearing vide order dated 3-9- 2003 and notices were issued. All the respondents are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends with reference to Annex-G, which is sort of result statement prepared by the official respondents of the said interview conducted pursuant to the filing of the applications by the petitioner and respondent No,3, argue that in violation of applicable rules, his client has not been awarded two marks for extra additional qualification as also 5 marks for training in the relevant field from recognized institute. According to the learned counsel the petitioner has been deprived of his right to be selected on merits for reasons that he being a Stenotypist was not considered to be appointed to a post of higher grade. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that since respondent No,3 is Chartered Accountant and the post pertains to accounts, respondents have not done any wrong while selecting the respondent No,3. Regarding the said specific allegation vis-a-vis rules in the matter of awarding of marks, however, learned counsel has not much to say except that certificate of training is dubious document.
3. I have examined the respective pleadings and documents placed on record by both the parties.
Now the learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the case of Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 75 others v. Government of Punjab and others (2003 SCM R 291), in particular, observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court appearing in para. 10 of the judgment at page 304 of the report., I deem it proper to reproduce the same here:-- "The appointments in the public sector is a trust in the hands of public authorities and it is their legal and moral duty to discharge their function as trustee with complete transparency as per requirement of law so that no person who is eligible to hold such posts, is excluded from the process of selection and is deprived of his right of appointment in service."
4. Now according to the applicable Recruitment Rules two marks are to be awarded for each extra course subject to maximum of 6 marks. Now requisite qualification for the post, as per said advertisement is any of the following from University recognised by U.G.C. (presently Higher Education Commission):-- i . M . B. A . (Finance). iiM . A . (Economics). iii Chartered Accountants. vi. M.B.A./M.A. (Economics).
' A bare look on the said qualifications would show that holder of any of the same would be eligible for appointment. This being so, the petitioner having degree of M.B.A. (Finance) as also MA (Economics) would certainly be holding an additional qualification and as such would be entitled to 2 marks permissible under the Rules. Similarly as per certificate Annex-M it stands certified that the petitioner has obtained training in various Computer Software courses as mentioned in the certificate. Now according to the learned counsel this certificate has not been issued by a proper institution. However, there is not a word available in the record as to why this certificate was not considered. I also find that it has been noted against respondent No,3 that he has not enclosed the experience certificate and domicile certificate with the application while against the petitioner it has been noted, "the individual does possess the requisite experience in the relevant field".
5. It is but obvious that in case the said 7 marks are added, the position of the petitioner comes at number one on merits.
6. Now so far as the said contention of the learned counsel is concerned, that since respondent No,3 is Chartered Accountant, he stands at higher pedestal, I do not find any force in the same for the reasons that there is no such representation in the said advertisement which places all the four qualifications at par.
7. I may note here that respondent No,3 although selected/appointed, had not taken over. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to letter dated 15-7-2003 issued by the official respondents to respondent No,3 calling upon him to convey his consent to the acceptance of the offer of appointment. He then draws my attention to letter dated 10-9-2003 whereby a D.D.
(Revenue) has been assigned to said post of D.D. (Finance).
8. For all that has been discussed above, I do find that the matter has not been considered by the official respondents in true spirit of said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The official respondents are directed to re-consider the matter after adding 2 marks for additional qualification being held by the petitioner and further after getting said certificate of training verified and if found to be in actordance with the Rules, to add 5 more marks to his tally. The needful to be done within six weeks of receipt of this order under intimation to D.R (Judl.) of this Court. No order as to costs.