,,,,
1. The challenge in this petition is to the appointment of respondent No.4 as Junior Mistress (Cutting and Tailoring) in the Industrial Training,,,,
Department, Haryana through advertisement dated March 12, 2013. The petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate. The appointments were on contract",,,,
basis. The selection was made by a Committee constituted by order dated February 12, 2013 to select the eligible and meritorious candidates. The",,,,
multi member Committee was headed by the Divisional Commissioner Ambala Division as its Chairman. The essential academic qualification and,,,,
experience prescribed for the post in the advertisement is as under:-,,,,
“(i) Full time, regular mode Bachelor degree in relevant trade as mentioned in appendix B2 from any institute/University recognized by National",,,,
Institute of Fashion Technology(NIFT) All India Council of Technical Education/Haryana State Board of Technical Education with one year,,,,
practical/teaching experience;,,,,
or,,,,
Full time, regular mode Diploma in relevant trade as mentioned in appendix B2 from Haryana State Board of Technical Education or National Institute",,,,
of Fashion Technology with two year practical/teaching experience;,,,,
or,,,,
National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate with Craft Instructor Training Course (CITC) or Teacher Training Course (TTC) in,,,,
relevant trade as mentioned in appendix B2 with five year Practical teaching experience Including training period;,,,,
(ii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric Standard or higher education;,,,,
Note:- Preference shall be given to the degree/diploma holder candidate possessing Craft Instructor Training Course in relevant trade/P.O.T. from,,,,
NCVT recognized institution.â€,,,,
2. The Committee prepared merit list as per the criteria prescribed. The name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No.10 in the general category.,,,,
Initially three posts were advertised of which one was for general category; one was for Scheduled Caste and one for Backward Class category.,,,,
Later on, the posts were increased from 3 to 4 with one extra given to the general category. Short-listing method was adopted by calling four times the",,,,
number of vacant posts category-wise to be called for interview. Eight candidates were called against the two posts of general category. The,,,,
interviews were conducted as scheduled on May 08, 2013. On the day of interview only three candidates out of eight appeared before the Selection",,,,
Committee. The candidates were Meena Rani-respondent No.4, Priyanka Kumari Joon and Lajwanti. At the time of interview, the Committee noticed",,,,
that inadvertently 20 extra marks were granted for higher qualification to Ms. Priyanka Kumar Joon as she did not possess the higher qualification.,,,,
Due to this mistake, the merit list was amended and the merit position of Ms. Joon got changed and her name was placed at Sr. No.70. Candidates up",,,,
to Sr. No.10 were allowed to appear for interview before the Interview Committee. Ms. Joon was not interviewed. Interestingly, Smt. Meena Rani-",,,,
respondent No.4 (selected candidate) appeared for the interview on May 08, 2013 and informed members of the Committee that she had brought all",,,,
original certificates except one original experience certificate and her son was on his way bringing the original certificate to the venue.,,,,
3. The original record of Meena Rani was called by order and has been produced. The application is dated March 26, 2013. It has been recorded by",,,,
hand on the reverse of the first page of the application form by the members that “Exp Certificate in original not available at time of interview.,,,,
11.20 AM 8.5.2013â€.,,,,
4. In the written statement in para.6 it has been stated that after 20 minutes she again informed the interview Committee that she had by then her,,,,
original experience certificate and requested to allow her to appear in the interview. The Committee considered her request and allowed her to appear,,,,
in the interview. She was interviewed. As per merit list respondent No.4 secured 63.02 marks including for interview whereas the petitioner secured,,,,
50.68 marks in the final merit list (Annexure R-IV). As respondent No.4 secured more marks she was rightly selected by the Committee. It may be,,,,
noticed that the petitioner's name was in the waiting list in the final result declared.,,,,
5. There is no subsequent note in the original record recording after “20 minutes†and how she was permitted to be interviewed even when her,,,,
vital experience certificate in original to make her eligible was not available at the time of interview when she was called in. There is no record in,,,,
writing that the original certificate of experience was produced before the interview Committee on the same day. This is a matter of conjecture and,,,,
oral statement which cannot be cross checked by written record which is not supported by any note or entry on the file especially when the,,,,
Committee had recorded that experience certificate in original was not available at the time of interview. On February 11, 2014 this Court passed the",,,,
following order while issuing notice of motion to the respondentsâ€-,,,,
“It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the candidature of the respondent No. 4 could not have been considered for appointment,,,,
to the post of Junior Mistress (Cutting and Tailoring) as conditions No. 13 and 15 (at page 30), as specified in the Instructions dated 08.03.2013",,,,
(Annexure P-2), have been violated. He contends that the said respondent did not produce the original experience certificate at the time of interview",,,,
and in support of this assertion, he has placed reliance upon the information supplied to him by respondents No. 1 to 3 under the Right to Information",,,,
Act, where a note has been appended (page 45 of the paper-book) that the experience certificate in original is not available at the time of interview.",,,,
Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per condition No. 15 of the Instructions, referred to above, candidates must possess requisite experience",,,,
after acquiring requisite academic qualification. Respondent No. 4 has passed her Central Training for Instructor Course in Cutting and,,,,
Sewing/Embroidery and Needle Work from the Government Central Institute of Women, Union Territory, Chandigarh in July, 2010. The experience",,,,
thereafter, has to be counted and the cut off date of submission of the application was 28.03.2013 and, therefore, the requisite experience, as provided",,,,
for in the advertisement, of five years including the period spent on training is not fulfilled.",,,,
Notice of motion for 18.08.2014.â€,,,,
6. The advertisement was issued after coming into force of the statutory rules, namely, the Industrial Training Department Haryana Field Offices",,,,
(Group-C) Service Rules, 2013 wherein for the post of Craft Instructor (Women) Cutting & Sewing the required qualification for direct recruitment is",,,,
as under:-,,,,
C(b),Craft Instructor (Women),"Qualification for direct recruitment
to be read with Appendix B2, for
trades mentioned at serial No.1 to
6.",,
1,2,3,,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.","Cutting & Sewing
Dress Making
Embroidery & Needle
Work
Fashion Technology
Hair & Skin Care
Computer Aided Embroidery","(1) Full time regular mode Bachelor
degree in relevant trade as
mentioned in appendix B2 from any
institute/University recognized by
National Institute of Fashion
Technology (NIFT)/ All India
Council of Technical Education/
Haryana State Board of Technical
Education with one year
practical/teaching experience; Or
Full time, regular mode Diploma in
relevant trade as mentioned in
appendix B2 from Haryana State
Board of Technical Education or
National Institute of Fashion
Technology/ teaching experience;
Or National Trade Certificate/
National Apprenticeship Certificate
with Craft Instructor Training
Course (CITC) or Teacher Training
Course (TTC) in relevant trade as
mentioned in appendix B2 with five
year Practical/teaching experience
including training period; (ii)
Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric Standard
or higher education; Note:-
Preference shall be given to the
degree/diploma holder candidate
possessing Craft Instructor Training
Course in relevant trade/P.O.T.
from NCVT recognized institution.",,
,"Bhawan Beauty Parlour
and Institute of Cutting,
sewing, fashion
designing & Beauty
Parlour",16 Months,"Dated 01.09.2013
to 31.12.2006",4000/-
,"Bhawan Beauty Parlour
and Institute of Cutting,
sewing, fashion
designing & Beauty
Parlour",18 months,"Dated 01.01.2007 to
30.06.2008",5000/-
,Neelam Boutique,12 months,"Dated 15.07.2008 to
14.07.2009",1600/-
,Description of experience.,,,
,"Women Fashion
Designing Boutique &
Beauty Care Training
Centre",12 months,"Dated 01.08.2011 to
31.07.2012",3000/-
,Total Experience,4 years 10 Months,,
12,"Any other particular
information/
achievement",Won Miss congeniality award at NIFD,,
13,"The name of institution
where you seek
appointment. The name
of institution as per
preference.","1. Govt. I.T.I. Ambala
2. Govt. I.T.I. Shahbad.",,
respondent No 4 in absence of record nor can the defect be cured by way of an additional affidavit and statements made therein to uphold the,,,,
selection process. It is well settled that it is not the decision but the decision-making process which is amenable to judicial review. If the process is,,,,
gravely suspect and an incurable lacuna remains and persists which has not been properly explained by the State, then I have no option left but to set",,,,
aside the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 on the contractual post. The Chairman and other members of the Committee are not on,,,,
affidavit dispelling doubts as to what transpired at the interview after recording in writing “Exp Certificate in original not available at time of,,,,
interview. 11.20 AM 8.5.2013â€. Merit of the Respondent No 4 has little role to play and plug the loophole covered by a grey area on which no light is,,,,
thrown. The doubt created by procedure adopted by the Committee on the spur of the moment is too wide to ignore. Consequently, arbitrariness rules",,,,
the roost of interview process in the case of the Respondent No 4. Time and timing became the essence of the interview. The additional affidavit,,,,
states that in case the 4th respondent was not interviewed and she had come to court complaining, then what would the state have said in defence.",,,,
This appears to me a perverted and unpredictable view built on a hypothesis of what would be the fair thing to do.,,,,
14. The petition is allowed. It is held that the selection of respondent No.4 suffers from arbitrariness, discrimination and patent illegality and the same",,,,
is quashed. The official respondents are free to make a fresh selection in accordance with law. Original record is returned to Mr. Rathee. No order as,,,,
to costs.,,,,
