CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 1 of 39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

221

1. CWP-10687-2024 (O&M)

Anil Kumar ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)

AND

2. CWP-24474-2024 (O&M)

Tina Parashar ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)

The date when the judgment is reserved:16.07.2026

The date when the judgment is pronounced:11.08.2026

The date when the judgment is uploaded on

the website:

11.08.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is

pronounced or whether the full judgment is

pronounced:

Full

judgment

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Vikram Vir Sharda and

Mr. Jugash Goyal, Advocates

for the petitioner (in CWP-10687-2024).

Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal and Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocates for

respondent No. 3-HPSC (in CWP-24474-2024).

Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 7.

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 2 of 39

Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate for

respondents No. 4 to 6-HPSC (in CWP-10687-2024).

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CWP-10687-2024 (O&M)

Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ

in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated

22.04.2024 (Annexure P-38) passed by respondent No.1, whereby services

of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect.

CWP-24474-2024 (O&M)

Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ in the

nature of Certiorari or Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or

direction for setting aside the impugned order dated 4.7.2024 (Annexure P-

13); whereby the claim of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Director

Statistics has been illegally rejected by the respondent Haryana Public

Service Commission and with a further prayer to direct the respondents to

appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director (Statistics) with full

back salary and all consequential benefits from the date the first set of

candidates joined on the post of Assistant Director Statistics.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both

the above said cross-Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 3 of 39

order as the facts, issues, and parties involved in both the cases are

same/connected. For the sake of convenience, facts are being drawn from,

and parties are being referred to as per their status in CWP-10687-2024

titled as Anil Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner that the respondent-Haryana Public Service Commission

(hereinafter ‘HPSC’), had issued an Advertisement No. 1/2016 dated

29.07.2016 (Annexure P-7) for appointment to 05 posts of Assistant

Director (Statistics), Group-B, Industries & Commerce Department,

Haryana. Closing date for submission of applications was 29.08.2016.

Eligibility was to be determined as on the closing date. For the said post of

Assistant Director (Statistics), following qualification was required: -

“Essential Qualifications (for the post of Assistant Director

(Statistics) Group 'B' in Industries & Commerce Department

Haryana (Cat. No. 3):

(i) Master Degree in Economics/ Commerce/ Mathematics/

Statistics (with at least 2nd division) or Chartered Accountant

or Company Secretary or Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA)

from recognized University/Institution, with minimum two

years experience at supervisory level in manufacturing sector in

a Small, Medium or Large Industry/Semi

Government/Government Undertaking/Department; and

(ii) Knowledge of Hindi or Sanskrit upto Matric Standard or

Higher Education.”

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 4 of 39

4. It is submitted that as the petitioner was eligible and having

requisite qualification and experience, petitioner had submitted Application

Form dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure P-8) for the post of Assistant Director

(Statistics) Group ‘B’ in the Industries & Commerce Department, Haryana.

On 17.09.2018, final result (Annexure P-14) was declared; and Roll No. of

the petitioner (1009) and Roll Nos. of other candidates borne on List dated

14.08.2018 (Annexure P-12), were mentioned in the above said final result.

As per the said final result, petitioner is shown to have secured 71 marks in

the written examination; whereas respondent No.4-Tina Parashar was

shown to have secured 68 marks. Accordingly, vide letter dated 27.09.2018

(Annexure P-15), petitioner was called for verification of original documents

within 15 days. As the petitioner was found to be eligible in the document

verification, petitioner was appointed vide letter dated 28.09.2018

(Annexure P-16).

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that

although Appointment Letter was issued to the petitioner on 28.09.2018

but he was not allowed to join duty. Accordingly, petitioner made

representation dated 05.10.2018 (Annexure P-18) to the Additional Chief

Secretary to Government Haryana, Industries and Commerce Department

to allow him to join the duty. As needful was not done even thereafter,

petitioner had filed CWP-26573-2018 titled as Anil Kumar vs. State of

Haryana and others seeking direction to the respondents to allow the

petitioner to join duty. Vide order dated 15.10.2018 (Annexure P-19), notice

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 5 of 39

was issued in the matter for 22.11.2018. However, in the meantime, vide

order dated 05.11.2018 (Annexure P-20), the petitioner was posted as

Assistant Director (Statistics) in the office of Deputy Director, District

Industries Centre, Palwal; pursuant to which petitioner joined duty on

06.11.2018 vide Joining Report (Annexure P-21). As such, aforesaid CWP-

26573-2018 was disposed of as infructuous by this Court vide order dated

15.12.2018 (Annexure P-22).

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that

apparently in the meantime, respondent No.7 had allegedly made a

complaint dated 24.09.2018 against the petitioner on the ground that the

petitioner did not have requisite qualification and experience. As such,

petitioner was shocked to receive Show Cause Notice dated 06.03.2019

(Annexure P-23) from respondent No.1; whereby he was called upon to

show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service within a

period of 15 days from the date of issuance of the notice. The petitioner

submitted detailed reply dated 17.03.2019 (Annexure P-24) alongwith

relevant documents stating that he fulfilled the prescribed qualification and

was having higher level experience i.e. as Assistant Manager in MTNL and

Chief Manager in NSIC, than the experience which is required for the post

of Assistant Director (Statistics) Group-B.

7. Learned Senior Counsel submits that on the asking of the

petitioner, the previous employer of the petitioner i.e. MTNL has also issued

clarification letter dated 04.10.2018 (Annexure P-25) stating that MTNL is a

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 6 of 39

service-cum-manufacturing sector company. Thus, complaint of respondent

No.7 that petitioner did not possess requisite experience as per the

essential qualification, was a misnomer and incorrect.

8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that pursuant to

similarly worded experience of category No. 2 & 4 Assistant Director

(Industrial Promoting) & Assistant Director (Project), respectively, as

advertised vide Adv. No.1 dated 29.07.2026, candidates have been selected

from Nationalized Banks, Delhi Metro, HERC etc. It is contended that,

therefore, experience outside the manufacturing sector but of Semi

Government/Government Undertaking/Department was considered

eligible by respondents. Therefore, same should be done in the case of the

petitioner as well. Moreover, petitioner in his representation dated

05.01.2022 (Annexure P-27) has categorically asked for providing

documents related to qualification and experience of all the candidates

recommended by HPSC for the post of Assistant Director

(Statistics/Industrial Promotion/Project/Technical). However, till date the

said documents have not been supplied to the petitioner by the

respondents.

9. Ld. Senior counsel further submits that all the employees of

Central Govt. undertaking including MTNL have been classified by

Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) into three categories as per their

position: (1) Board level employees; (2) Below Board level executive

employees; (3) Supervisors (unionized or non-unionized). Further, also

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 7 of 39

submitted that as per the guidelines of Central Public Sector Enterprises

2019 issued upto 30.09.2018 (Annexure P/26), the basis pay scale of the

above-mentioned employees makes it clear that below Board Level

Employee as E-2 level which is Assistant Manager in MTNL is much higher to

the level of Supervisor. Perusal of the guidelines clearly reveals that the

experience of the petitioner (E-2) is much higher level to the supervisory

scale. It is contended that accordingly, it cannot be said that petitioner did

not possess the necessary experience.

10. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that even after serving

Show Cause Notice dated 06.03.2019 on the petitioner, the Department

kept assigning additional charge of higher-level posts to the petitioner with

effect from 01.04.2019 till his termination. During his 4 years of service, the

Petitioner served the Department as Officiating Deputy Director of District

Industries Centre Palwal, Officiating Joint Director of District Industries

Centre Faridabad, Rewari, Mohindergarh and Nuh along with the Additional

charge of District Registrar (Firms & Societies) of District Palwal, Faridabad,

Rewari, Mohindergarh and Nuh. Thus, the work of District Registrar Firms &

Societies has nothing to do with manufacturing sector.

11. Learned Senior Counsel submits that despite the above said

facts the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner remained pending.

Accordingly, petitioner had submitted representation dated 05.01.2022

(Annexure P-27) to the concerned officer, requesting that the said Show

Cause Notice be filed and/or provide related documents on the basis of

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 8 of 39

which Show Cause Notice had been issued. In response thereto vide letter

dated 21.06.2022 (Annexure P-28), petitioner was asked to appear before

the Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Industries & Commerce

Department, Haryana. Petitioner had appeared as such; whereupon

petitioner had requested that his experience is to be treated on parity with

other selected candidates from Semi-Government/Govt. Undertaking/Govt.

Department which makes it clear that the criteria of manufacturing sector

has not been applied by HPSC to candidates having experience from Semi

Government/Govt. undertaking /Govt. Department. Though the petitioner

was given personal hearing by the then Principal Secretary to the Govt. of

Haryana, Deptt. of Industries and Commerce however, the then Additional

Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana, Deptt. of Industries and

Commerce, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,

passed the order dated 08.09.2022 (Annexure P/29) whereby the services

of petitioner were terminated with immediate effect.

12. The petitioner had challenged the said order dated 08.09.2022

(Annexure P-29) before this Court by way of CWP-24819-2022 titled as Anil

Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others. Vide order dated 28.10.2022

(Annexure P-30), this Court was pleased to issue notice and stayed the

operation of the impugned order dated 08.09.2022. Learned Senior Counsel

submits that despite the stay granted by this Court vide Annexure P-30,

respondents did not permit the petitioner to resume his duties. Finally vide

order dated 09.08.2023 (Annexure P-32), the said CWP-24819-2022 was

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 9 of 39

allowed; and the impugned order was set aside on the ground that the

same had been passed by violating the settled principles of law as personal

hearing had been given to the petitioner by a particular officer; whereas

the impugned order dated 08.09.2022 had been passed by another officer.

13. Learned Senior Counsel submits that despite the order dated

09.08.2023 (Annexure P-32) allowing the said CWP, respondents did not

permit the petitioner to resume his duties. On the contrary, respondents

issued Notice dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure P-33) to the petitioner for

personal hearing for 26.09.2023. Pursuant to the said Notice dated

15.09.2023, the petitioner vide letter dated 19.09.2023 and letter dated

03.10.2023 (Annexure P-34) had requested the respondents to provide

documents relied upon while issuing Show Cause Notice dated 06.03.2019.

However, instead of providing requisite documents, the respondents issued

another notice dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure P-35) to the petitioner for

personal hearing on 18.10.2023. Accordingly, petitioner was given personal

hearing by respondent No.2 on 18.10.2023; and Minutes of Meeting dated

18.10.2023 (Annexure P-36) were issued; wherein few issues were framed,

and the parties were directed to submit their written reply on the said

issues. Petitioner had submitted comprehensive reply dated 06.11.2023

(Annexure P-37) to these points. In the meantime, respondent No.2 who

had granted personal hearing to the petitioner was transferred by the State

Government and in his place, respondent No. 1 was posted as Additional

Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana, Department of Industries &

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 10 of 39

Commerce, who had issued another Notice dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-

37/A) asking the petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 on

22.04.2024 for personal hearing. On 22.04.2024, respondent No.1 passed

impugned order dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure P-38); whereby services of

the petitioner were again terminated with immediate effect.

14. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order has

been passed on the premise that the petitioner does not possess the

requisite qualification/experience. Learned Senior Counsel contends that

the said reason as recorded by the authority per se is incorrect as the

petitioner has the work experience of two Government Undertakings; and,

therefore, fulfils the requirement of experience in one out of the four

mutually exclusive categories of prescribed work experience i.e.

"manufacturing sector in small, medium or large industry/Semi

Government/Government Undertaking/Department". It is argued that in

case the experience was to be considered only in manufacturing sector

then the words "Semi-Government/ Government Undertaking/Department"

are rendered completely otiose.

15. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that while passing the

impugned order of termination dated 22.04.2024, the respondent no.1 has

given a complete short shrift to plain language of eligibility condition as

advertised; which reads that experience has to be either in "a

Small/Medium or Large Industry/Semi-Government/Government

Undertaking/Department". It is argued that therefore, as per the

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 11 of 39

advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Director (Statistics),

minimum two years experience at supervisory level is required in any of the

following four categories: -

(A) Manufacturing sector in a small, medium or large industry.

(B) Semi-Government

(C) Government Undertaking

(D) Department

16. Accordingly, petitioner's experience of Govt. Undertakings i.e.

2 years 7 months in NSIC as Associate Company Secretary (Chief Manager);

and 6 years 7 months in MTNL as Assistant Manager (CS), makes him fully

eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Director (Statistics).

17. Further, the word "Manufacturing Unit" is not mentioned in

the Eligibility Criteria and therefore, the complaint made by Tina Parashar is

false and misleading. The eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Director

(Statistics) as per Appendix-B of Rule 7 of Haryana Industries and

Commerce (Group-B) Service Rules 2014 read with HPSC Advt. is "Master

Degree in Economics/Commerce/Mathematics/Statistics (with at least 2nd

Division) or Chartered Accountant or Company Secretary or Chartered

Financial Analyst (CFA) from recognized University/Institution, with

minimum two years experience at supervisory level in manufacturing sector

in a Small, Medium or Large Industry/Semi Government/Government

Undertaking/Department." Hence it is clear that the word mentioned in the

eligibility criteria is "Manufacturing sector" and not "Manufacturing Unit”.

As a result, petitioner fulfills the experience requirement as well.

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 12 of 39

18. Learned Senior Counsel further elaborates to submit that the

duties as prescribed in the Advertisement do not require experience on any

manufacturing process for the post of Assistant Director (Statistics). Further,

a perusal of the advertisement shows the use of the symbol '/' or "oblique"

in several places. When used in writing and typography such a slanting or

diagonal line represents alternatives. Therefore, it is the case of the

Petitioner that the qualifications will read as:

(1) The post is that of Assistant Director (Statistics)

(2) The academic qualification is of master's degree in Economics OR

Commerce OR Mathematics OR Statistics, with at least 2nd Division

OR;

(3) A Company Secretary from recognized University OR Institution

(4) with minimum two years' experience at supervisory level in

manufacturing sector in a Small, Medium or Large Industry

OR

(5) with minimum two years' experience at supervisory level in Semi

Government OR

(6) with minimum two years' experience at supervisory level in Government

Undertaking OR

(7) with minimum two years' experience at supervisory level in Department.

19. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is

that Assistant Director (Statistics) does not relate to a manufacturing sector

and two years' experience at supervisory level in Semi Government/

Government Undertaking/Department would simplicitor be adequate.

20. Learned Senior Counsel further refers to the Application Form

(Annexure P-40) of one of the selected candidates, namely Kshitij (Roll No.

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 13 of 39

1053), to submit that said Kshitij is having the work experience as Statistical

Assistant in Agriculture Department, Government of Haryana and does not

have the work experience in "manufacturing sector in small, medium or

large industry". It is argued that Respondents cannot sail on two boats

simultaneously as on the one hand they are not accepting the experience of

"Semi Government/Government Undertaking/Department" at Assistant

Manager Level and Chief Manager Level of the Petitioner; and on the other

hand the Respondents have accepted the experience of other selected

candidate namely Kshitiz (Roll No. 1053) at Statistical Assistant Level in

Agriculture Department, Government of Haryana, who too does not have

the experience of "manufacturing sector".

21. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the respondent

No.1 while passing the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 completely failed

to take note of the very pertinent fact that there was no misrepresentation

and/or concealment on part of the petitioner while submitting his

experience certificate, wherein he has clearly submitted that he was

working on a supervisory level in MTNL. Moreover, it should have been

appreciated that petitioner was drawing salary clearly way more than a

workman i.e. level below that of Supervisor.

22. To support his contentions, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner relies upon the following judgments: -

1. Ajay Kumar vs. The Haryana State Cooperative Land

Development Bank Ltd. (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Finder

Doc Id # 2906229;

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 14 of 39

2. Ram Sarup vs. State of Haryana and others, (1979) 1

Supreme Court Cases 168; and

3. Anantdeep Singh vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2449.

23. He accordingly prays that the present Petition be allowed; and

a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the Impugned Order

dated 22.04.2024, Annexure P/38, passed by Respondent No.1, whereby

the services of petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect; and

further, issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents

to reinstate the petitioner into service as Assistant Director (Statistics),

Industries and Commerce Department, Haryana with effect from

08.09.2022 i.e. from the date when the services of the petitioner were first

terminated and to grant him all consequential benefits including the

payment of salary for the interregnum period.

24. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.7

supported by learned State. Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions

advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that petitioner

does not possess the requisite qualification as stipulated in Rule 7 of the

Haryana Industries & Commerce Group B Service Rules, 2014 (Annexure R-

4) which provides the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of

Assistant Director (Statistics). It is submitted that it is admitted case of the

petitioner that he does not possess minimum 2 years’ experience at

supervisory level in a manufacturing sector as stipulated in the

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 15 of 39

Advertisement. As such, services of the petitioner have been rightly

terminated.

25. It is further submitted that petitioner is bound by the

conditions as mentioned in his letter of appointment dated 28.09.2018

(Annexure P-16). Learned Senior Counsel points out that it is categorically

stated in the letter of appointment that appointment of the petitioner is

subject to the verification of the documents submitted. And upon scrutiny

of the documents when it was found that the petitioner did not possess the

requisite qualification/experience and accordingly, his services were rightly

terminated. It is pointed out that in fact the petitioner himself vide his

Affidavit dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure R-7) had undertaken that in case the

petitioner is found ineligible at any stage, then his services be terminated

with immediate effect.

26. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that not only has the

petitioner not worked in a manufacturing sector as required, but the

petitioner has also not even worked at supervisory level as certified by his

previous employer i.e. MTNL vide letter dated 13.11.2018 (Annexure R-9). It

is accordingly prayed that the present Civil Writ Petition no.10687 of 2024,

be dismissed being without merit.

27. In respect of CWP-24474-2024 filed by respondent No.7-Tina

Parashar (petitioner in CWP-24474-2024), learned Senior Counsel submits

that Ms. Tina Parashar is immediately below the petitioner in the zone of

consideration; and in case the present CWP-10687-2024 is dismissed, she

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 16 of 39

would be eligible for appointment. It is pointed out that Ms. Tina Parashar

had duly submitted representation dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P-12 in

CWP-24474-2024) pointing out that since services of the selected candidate

i.e. Anil Kumar (petitioner in CWP-10687-2024) have been terminated, she,

being next in merit, be considered for appointment. However, the said

representation/claim of Tina Parashar has been rejected by the impugned

order dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure P-13 in CWP-24474-2024). Learned

Senior Counsel prays that the said order dated 04.07.2024 be set aside. It is

also prayed that the CWP No. 10687 of 2024 be dismissed, upholding the

order dated 22.04.2024 terminating the services of Shri Anil Kumar; and the

CWP No. 24474 of 2024, be allowed setting aside the order dated

04.07.2024 of the Haryana Public Service Commission, and direct the

respondents to offer appointment to Tina Parashar to the post of Assistant

Director (Statistics), Industries & Commerce Department, Haryana, being

the next eligible candidate in the order of merit of the selection pursuant to

Advertisement No. 1(3) of 2016, with seniority and all consequential

benefits with notional benefits from the date the other selected candidates

joined.

28. Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Anil Kumar’s case

(petitioner in CWP-10687-2024), reiterates his submissions made

hereinabove.

29. Learned Counsel for the State adopts and affirms the

submissions advanced on behalf of respondent No.7/Tina Parashar.

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 17 of 39

30. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have

heard learned Senior counsel for the parties and perused the case file in

detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the

petitioner in CWP-10687-2024.

31. Brief factual background of the case in chronological order is as

follows: -

26/29.07.2016: Advertisement No. 1/2016 (Annexure P-7) is issued by the

Commission for 05 posts of Assistant Director (Statistics), Group-B,

Industries & Commerce Department, Haryana. Closing date is 29.08.2016.

Eligibility is to be determined as on the closing date.

30.08.2016: Application of petitioner (Annexure P-8) discloses 2

experiences: (i) NSIC — Chief Manager (Associate Company Secretary)

07.02.2011 to 30.08.2013, nature of duty: “Secretarial, Human Resource &

MSME Promotion Schemes related work”; and (ii) MTNL — Assistant

Manager (CS), 27.10.2003 to 25.06.2010, nature of duty: “Secretarial &

Legal”.

18.09.2018: Final result (Annexure P-14) is declared. General category

selectees in order of merit are: Sanjit Kaur (76.00); Kshitij (73.50);

Petitioner/Anil Kumar (71.00); Neelima (69.50); Tina Parashar (68.00) next

in order of merit.

20.09.2018: Within three days, Tina Parashar submitted representation

(Annexure P-4 in CWP-24474-2024) to the Commission objecting that

petitioner lacks the requisite two years’ supervisory experience in the

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 18 of 39

manufacturing sector.

20.09.2018: Commission’s recommendation letter dated 20.09.2018

(Annexure R-1), to the Government expressly recorded that documents of

the recommended candidates had not been verified by the Commission and

directed verification of eligibility before offer of appointment.

24.09.2018: Tina Parashar files complaint (Annexure R-3), to the Additional

Chief Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department.

27.09.2018: Department called upon the petitioner to produce original

documents for verification within 15 days (Annexure P-15).

28.09.2018: Conditional appointment letter (Annexure P-16) is issued to the

petitioner of which Clauses 14 and 16 specifically state that appointment is

subject to verification of qualifications/experience; and that service is liable

to be terminated at any time without notice if adverse facts surface.

03.10.2018: Commission informed Tina Parashar that verification of

testimonials of qualifications and experience will be verified by the

Government/concerned Department before issuing appointment letters

(Annexure P-5 in CWP 24474-2024).

05.10.2018: As the petitioner was not given joining, he made

representation dated 05.10.2018 (Annexure P-18) and filed CWP No. 26573

of 2018 seeking joining.

26.10.2018: The petitioner was allowed to join only upon furnishing

affidavit dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure R-7) with the undertaking that if his

experience is not found as per the service rules or he is otherwise found

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 19 of 39

ineligible at any stage, his services may be terminated with immediate

effect without notice. With the above conditions, petitioner, accordingly,

joined on 06.11.2018.

30.10.2018: NSIC’s issued reply under the RTI Act, 2005 stating that: “NSIC

is not engaged directly in manufacturing sector.”

13.11.2018: MTNL issued letter (Annexure R-9) stating that petitioner: “has

not worked at supervisory level but worked as Assistant Manager (Company

Secretariat) under the Company Secretary Division of MTNL Corporate

Office which is not a manufacturing unit/sector of MTNL.”

2018: Tina Parashar filed CWP No. 32025 of 2018 challenging the

selection/appointment of the petitioner and seeking her own appointment.

08.09.2022: First termination order dated 08.09.2022 (Annexure P-29) is

passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, against the petitioner holding that

the mandatory experience requirement is unfulfilled.

28.10.2022: Vide order dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure P-30), stay of the

operation of the order dated 08.09.2022 was granted by this Court in CWP

No. 24819 of 2022. However, admittedly, as admitted by the petitioner

himself in para 40 of the present CWP-10687-2024, petitioner has never

given joining after 8.9.2022.

09.08.2023: Vide order dated 09.08.2023 (Annexure P-32), CWP No. 24819

of 2022 is allowed solely on the ground that hearing was afforded by one

officer while the order dated 8.9.2022 was passed by another. Express

liberty is granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order after hearing the

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 20 of 39

petitioner and the private respondents. On the same day, Tina Parashar’s

CWP No. 32025 of 2018 disposed of as infructuous in that light.

04.10.2023 to 07.12.2023: Fresh hearings are held on 04.10.2023,

18.10.2023, 06.11.2023, 22.11.2023 and 07.12.2023. The record bears out

that the petitioner absented himself on 04.10.2023 and 22.11.2023.

Detailed written versions are filed by both sides and copies exchanged.

10.04.2024 / 12.04.2024: Upon change of incumbent (w.e.f. 02.03.2024),

fresh hearing before the new Additional Chief Secretary on 10.04.2024

when Tina Parashar appeared through counsel and the petitioner remained

absent inspite of receipt of notice.

22.04.2024: Even on 22.4.2024, the petitioner deliberately abstained; and

after waiting from 3:30 PM to 4:30 PM, the Additional Chief Secretary

passed the impugned termination order dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure P-38)

as the requirement of two years’ experience at supervisory level in the

manufacturing sector is mandatory and petitioner does not possess it.

30.04.2024: Tina Parashar moves representation seeking

recommendation /appointment as the next candidate in order of merit

(Annexure P-12 in CWP No. 24474 of 2024)

04.07.2024: The Commission passed impugned speaking order dated

04.07.2024 (Annexure P-13 in CWP-24474-2024) rejecting Tina Parashar’s

representation.

32. Hence, the above said writ petitions before this Court.

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 21 of 39

33. The essential qualification for the post of Assistant Director

(Statistics) Group ‘B’ in Industries & Commerce Department Haryana (Cat.

No.3) as stipulated in Rule 7 of the Haryana Industries & Commerce (Group

B) Service Rules, 2014 (Annexure R-4) is reproduced as under:

Qualifications

"7. No person shall be appointed to any post in the Services

unless he is in possession of requisite qualifications and

experience specified in column 3 of Appendix B to these rules in

case of direct recruitment and those specified in column 4 of

the aforesaid Appendix in the case of appointment other than

by direct recruitment:

Provided that where sufficient number of candidates belonging

to the scheduled caste, backward classes, ex-servicemen and

differently-abled candidates possessing the prescribed requisite

experience are not available to fill up the vacancies reserved

for them by direct recruitment, the Commission or any other

recruiting authority may relax the qualifications regarding

experience to the extent of 50 percent after recording the

reasons for doing so in writing.”

The relevant portion of Appendix B mentioned in

above rule is reproduced as follows:-

Appendix B

Sr.

No.

Description of

Posts

Academic qualification

and experience for

direct recruitment

Academic qualification

experience if any for

appointment other

than by direct

recruitment

3. Assistant Director

(Statistics)

(i) Masters Degree in

Economics/Commerce/

Mathematics/

Statistics(with at least

2nd division) or

Chartered Accountant

or Company Secretary

or Chartered

(i) Bachelor Degree in

Economics/Commerce/S

tatistics/ Mathematics

from recognized

university; and

(ii) Eight years

experience as Industrial

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 22 of 39

Accountant or Company

Secretary or Chartered

Financial Analyst (CFA)

from recognized

University/Institution,

with minimum two

years experience at

supervisory level in

manufacturing Sector in

a Small, Medium or

Large Industry/Semi

Government/Governme

nt Undertaking/

Department; and

(ii) Knowledge of Hindi

Sanskrit up to or Matric

Standard or higher

education

Extension Officer

(Headquarter) or

Industrial Extension

Officer (District

Industries Centre)

By Transfer/Deputation

(i) Candidate already

holding the post of

Assistant Director

(Statistics) for at least

one year; and

(ii) Knowledge of Hindi

or Sanskrit up to Matric

Standard or Higher

Education.

34. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner

possesses the requisite academic qualification being Chartered Accountant.

The dispute is with respect to the experience qualification stipulated above.

It is the case of the petitioner that he has worked at a level higher than the

supervisory level with the MTNL. It is the argument on behalf of the

petitioner that experience in manufacturing sector has no nexus with the

duties as required to be fulfilled on the said post. Though at first blush, this

argument of ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner appears to be appealing,

however on further examination, the same is found to be devoid of merit.

35. From the extract above, it is crystal clear that as per the

relevant Rules, it is mandatory for the petitioner to possess the qualification

and experience as specified in the column 3 of the Appendix ‘B’ of the

Rules. Column 3 of the Appendix ‘B’ categorically stipulates that “minimum

2 years experience at supervisory level in manufacturing sector in a Small,

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 23 of 39

Medium or Large Industry/Semi-Government/Government Undertaking/

Department;.......”. Clearly, there are 3 stipulations within the Rule, the same

being: (a) 2 years of experience; (b) at supervisory level; and (c) in

manufacturing sector. The said experience in manufacturing sector can be

in a Small, Medium or Legal Industry. However, as will be demonstrated

hereinbelow, as per the own saying of the petitioner, he does not possess

the requisite experience at supervisory level required in the field i.e. in

manufacturing sector in a Small, Medium or Large Industry/Semi-

Government/Government Undertaking/ Department; as experience of the

petitioner is secretarial and legal in nature in a non-manufacturing sector.

36. In this regard, it may first be noted that petitioner is bound by

the conditions as stated in the Letter issued to him vide Memo No.

04/04/2015-21B-1 dated 28.09.2018 (P-16) recommending his

appointment. The relevant paragraph Nos. 14 and 16 of the said Letter read

as under:

“14. His/ Her documents pertaining to his/her

academic/professional qualification, experience, age and

caste/category etc., as claimed by him/her are yet to be

checked/verified from the concerned authorities/issuing

authorities regarding their validity, genuineness (and

equivalence to the prescribed qualification and eligibility and in

case during inspection/verification any adverse facts come to

the notice of the Department, his/her service will be liable to

be terminated any time, without any notice besides taking

criminal action against him her, for which he/she will be wholly

responsible. Therefore, he/she will have to bring any deposit all

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 24 of 39

original documents before joining on the post for

checking/verification.

XXX XXX XXX

16. This offer of appointment is subject to the Haryana

industries & Commerce (Group-B) Service Rules-2014 and all

other rules and regulations and executive instructions issued or

to be issued by the State Government from time to time."

(Emphasis added)

37. Thus, the Commission’s recommendation dated 28.09.2018

itself recorded that the candidates were interviewed on the basis of

photostat copies of the documents supplied by them; that their documents

had not been verified by the Commission; and that the Government must,

before issuing offers of appointment, check the originals and ensure

fulfilment of all conditions of qualification and experience prescribed in the

requisition and the relevant Service Rules. Clauses 14 and 16 of the Letter

dated 28.09.2018 made the appointment recommendation expressly

subject to verification. Verification of eligibility before allowing a candidate

to occupy a public post is not an act of suspicion but is an incident of the

Constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16. Not

verifying, particularly after a rival candidate’s specific complaint dated

20.09.2018/24.09.2018, would have been a dereliction of duty and a fraud

upon every eligible candidate who applied, and upon those who, respecting

the advertised criteria, did not apply. Thus, the candidates were selected on

the basis of the documents submitted by them and while recommending

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 25 of 39

the names of selected candidates it was clearly mentioned in the

recommendation letter that their credentials should be verified before

issuance of appointment letter.

38. Pursuant thereto, petitioner had also submitted Affidavit dated

26.10.2018 (Annexure R-7) and medical certificate. Thereafter he was

allowed to join duty, and he had submitted his joining report on 26.10.2018

(Annexure R-8). The contents of said Affidavit (P-7) are as under: -

"I, Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Dharampal, Resident of H. No. 101,

village Udaka, P.O. Sohna, Distt. NUH (Haryana) do hereby

solemnly affirm & declare as under:

1: That I had applied for the Post of Assistant Director Statistics

in Industries & Commerce Department against advertisement

No. 1(3) date of Publication 29th July, 2016. I got selected for

the above post and offered appointment letter vide memo No.

04/04/2015-521B-1 dt. 28.09.2018.

2. That if I am allowed to join on the post of Assistant Director

(Statistics) in Department of Industries & Commerce, Haryana

and if my service/experience certificate is not found as per

service rules of this department i.e. Two Years experience at

Supervisory Level in manufacturing sector in a small, Medium

or Large industry/Semi-Govt./ Govt. Undertaking/Department

or if I am otherwise found ineligible at any stage, then my

service may be terminated with immediate effect without any

notice.

3. That in case of any discrepancy found in the documents etc.

related to my appointment/joining etc. I shall be liable for

criminal and civil liability." (Emphasis is mine)

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 26 of 39

39. Thus, it was the own undertaking of the petitioner that in case

he is found ineligible, then his services may be terminated without notice.

The joining of the petitioner was conditional. The affidavit dated 26.10.2018

binds the petitioner. Therefore, service rendered by the petitioner from

2018 to 2022 would create no equity in his favour.

40. It is also to be noted that Tina Parashar had complained within

three days of the result, and the Government did not offer joining to the

petitioner. It was only upon his representation dated 05.10.2018 and his

petition i.e. CWP No. 26573 of 2018, and upon his furnishing the affidavit

dated 26.10.2018, that he was allowed to join. In that affidavit he solemnly

undertook as above to the effect that: “2. That if I am allowed to join on the

post of Assistant Director (Statistics) in Department of Industries &

Commerce, Haryana and if my service/experience certificate is not found as

per service rules of this department i.e. Two Years experience at Supervisory

Level in manufacturing sector in a small, Medium or Large industry/Semi-

Govt./Govt. Undertaking/Department or if I am otherwise found ineligible

at any stage, then my service may be terminated with immediate effect

without any notice...” Thus, having obtained entry upon this undertaking,

petitioner cannot subsequently complain when the contingency stipulated

therein has occurred. His service from 26.10.2018/06.11.2018 to

08.09.2022 which is rendered under a cloud, under a conditional

appointment, and in the teeth of a pending challenge (CWP No. 32025 of

2018), can cure no illegality and create no equity. Further, it stands

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 27 of 39

admitted in paragraph 40 of the instant writ petition that he has not been

in service since 08.09.2022.

41. Consequently, in accordance with the terms of the Letter of

Appointment and the above undertaking, the respondents had carried out

verification process; in pursuance to which Mahanagar Telephone Nigam

Limited (A Govt. of India Enterprises Nigam limited) had intimated vide

letter No. MTNL/CO/Pers./ Misc. File/2016, dated 13.11.2018 (Annexure R-

9) that “Shri Anil Kumar has not worked at supervisory level” but worked as

Assistant Manager (Company Secretariat) under the Company Secretary

Division of MTNL Corporate Office “which is not a manufacturing

unit/sector of MTNL”. Upon verification — which the Commission itself had

mandated — both issuing organisations returned categorical answers.

MTNL, by letter dated 13.11.2018, certified that Anil Kumar “has not

worked at supervisory level but worked as Assistant Manager (Company

Secretariat) under the Company Secretary Division of MTNL Corporate

Office which is not a manufacturing unit/sector of MTNL.” NSIC, in its reply

dated 30.10.2018 under the RTI Act, stated that “NSIC is not engaged

directly in manufacturing sector”.

42. In this regard, it is also to be noted that Service Certificate

dated 25.06.2010 (Annexure P-5) submitted by the petitioner alongwith his

application form shows that designation of the petitioner with the MTNL

was of ‘Assistant Manager (Company Secretary)’ where the petitioner had

worked in the Company Secretariat, MTNL, Corp. Office; and that petitioner

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 28 of 39

had resigned from the said post on 25.06.2020. Even as per the Experience

Certificate dated 07.08.2018 (Annexure P-6) issued by the National Small

Industries Corporation Limited (in short ‘NSIC’), it is shown that the

petitioner had worked as “Associate Company Secretary (Chief Manager)”. A

further perusal of the application form dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure P-8)

submitted by the petitioner to the respondent-Haryana Public Service

Commission shows that the same contains only bare personal details in

respect of his name, father’s name, address et cetera, qualification details;

and in the column for Experience Details, petitioner has merely mentioned

his qualification details. Petitioner has mentioned (at page 54 of the paper

book) that the nature of the duty of the petitioner with MTNL was as

“Assistant Manager (CS)” i.e. of Secretarial and Legal nature. Thus, it is the

own admission of the petitioner that his experience was in the Company

Secretariat of MTNL as ‘Assistant Manager (Company Secretary)’. Neither

the application form dated 30.08.2016 nor either of the two Experience

Certificates relied upon by the petitioner states, or even suggests, that he

worked at supervisory level in the manufacturing sector. The form itself

describes the nature of his duties as “Secretarial, Human Resource & MSME

Promotion Schemes related work” (NSIC) and “Secretarial & Legal” (MTNL).

Therefore, in view of the above facts, by no stretch of the imagination can it

be said that petitioner has experience in the manufacturing sector.

43. Further, in view of the clarification given by the Mahanagar

Telecom Nigam Limited, it was found that the petitioner had not worked at

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 29 of 39

supervisory level but worked as Assistant Manager (Company Secretariat)

under the Company Secretary Division of MTNL Corporate office which is

not manufacturing unit/sector of MTNL and as such he does not have the

requisite experience to be appointed to the post of Assistant Director

(Statistics) by direct recruitment. Therefore, petitioner was called upon by

Respondent No. 1 to show cause vide Memo no. 04/04/2015-2IBI dated

06.03.2019 (Annexure P-23) as to why he may not be dismissed from

service and be proceeded against in criminal action within 15 days of

issuance of said show cause notice. The reply dated 17.03.2019 (Annexure

P-24) of show cause notice issued to the Petitioner was received wherein he

refuted all the points of Show Cause Notice and claimed that he never

concealed any facts regarding his experience. He had also submitted that he

fulfills all the requisite criteria for the post of Assistant Director (Statistics)

as prescribed in Haryana Industries & Commerce (Group B) Service Rules,

2014. However, the same is contrary to the facts noted above as per which,

on the record, the petitioner on his own showing never possessed the

mandatory experience.

44. Further, it is established position in law that a candidate who

does not possess the requisite qualification has no right to appointment.

Moreover, this Court cannot interfere/meddle with the qualifications as

prescribed. I draw support from judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Pramod Kumar vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and

others (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 153; wherein it is held that: -

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 30 of 39

“A. Service Law – Appointment - Illegality – Lack of essential

qualifications - Held, illegality cannot be cured - Only

irregularity can be cured- Appellant appointed as teacher

without BEd degree from a recognised university, as provided

in rules framed under an Act - Held, his initial appointment

itself was a nullity - Illegality could not be cured by allowing

him to obtain a valid degree - An appointment which is

contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law -

U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection

Boards Act, 1982 (5 of 1982) – S. 16 - U.P. Secondary Education

Services Commission Rules, 1983 - R. 3 - U.P. Intermediate

Education Act, 1921 (2 of 1921), Ss. 16-E and 16-C(3).

B. Service Law - Recruitment process – Eligibility conditions -

Experience - Lack of - Held, cannot be cured post appointment.

F. Constitution of India - Arts. 32 and 227-Writs- Mandamus-

Held, can be sought when there is a right in an individual and

corresponding duty on the State agency - Appellant who did

not possess valid BEd degree, held, had no right to

appointment and therefore could not seek mandamus.”

45. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad

and others, (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 404, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has held as under: -

“A. Service Law - Recruitment Process - Eligibility

criteria/conditions - Necessity of possessing

statutorily/advertisement-prescribed qualifications - Possessing

of higher qualifications than stipulated for post- Equivalence of

qualifications - Scope of judicial interference.”

The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under: -

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 31 of 39

“26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation

which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. in the

subsequent decision in Anita. The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned

on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would

not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher

qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of

another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of

qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The

State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications

as a condition of eligibility. It is not part of the role or function

of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed

qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a

matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of

judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or

should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State,

as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti

K.K. turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding

of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a

lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present

case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this

view of the matter, the Division Bench¹ of the High Court was

justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge

and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not

meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the

decision of the Division Bench.

27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as

employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features

including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the

efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification

and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the

acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 32 of 39

authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies

of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of

administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer

may well take into account social perspectives that require the

creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All

these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must

tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. must be

understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under

which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes

the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be

sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that

the decision in Jyoti K.K. turned.”

46. Thus, in view of the factual and legal position noted above, no

error can be found in the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure P-

38).

47. It is also to be noted that the Advertisement and the Rules

have never been challenged by the petitioner. Even otherwise, after having

participated in the process, the petitioner is estopped from laying challenge

to the experience criteria. Admittedly, at no stage prior to the declaration of

the result — indeed at no stage even thereafter — has the petitioner

challenged Rule 7, Appendix B, or the Advertisement. He applied under

them, took the written test, appeared at the interview and accepted a

conditional appointment under them. The prescribed qualifications were,

therefore, the binding rules of the game for every participant and had to be

applied with strictness to all alike; whoever failed them had to go out of the

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 33 of 39

selection, whenever the failure was discovered. A candidate who

participates in the selection process without demur cannot, when

confronted with an adverse consequence, turn round and question the

criteria or supply his own. In this regard, reference may be made to a

judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Kumar v. State of

Uttar Pradesh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2730841; the relevant para of

which reads as under:-

“19. It is no longer res integra that terms of an advertisement

issued in connection with a selection process are normally not

open to challenge unless the challenge is founded on the

ground of breach of Article 16 of the Constitution or, for that

matter, Article 14. Once an advertisement is issued inviting

applications for public employment, it is the responsibility, nay

duty, of an aspirant to read and note the terms and understand

what its requirements are. If any aspirant finds any of the

terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in the

advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation, an effort

ought to be first made to obtain clarity for understanding the

requirements accurately. If no such scope is available, nothing

prevents the aspirant from seeking clarity by making a

representation. Should such clarity be not provided, the

aspirant may participate in the process without prejudice to his

rights and may question the term even after he is not selected.

However, if the aspirant does not make any such effort and

takes a calculated chance of selection based on his own

understanding of the disputed term in the advertisement and

later, he emerges unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not be open

to him to challenge the selection on the ground that the

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 34 of 39

disputed term is capable of being understood differently. In

such cases, the courts should be loath to entertain such plea of

ambiguity while preferring to accept the recruiting authority's

understanding of the said term. This is for the simple reason

that the recruiting authority is the best judge of what its

requirements are and it is such understanding of the recruiting

authority that would matter most in cases brought up before

the courts; hence, after commencement of the process wherein

aspirants have participated without raising any demur as to

what a particular terms means, even if any of the terms be

ambiguous, the courts should lean in favour of the recruiting

authority.”

48. Furthermore, the attempt of the petitioner to re-write the

eligibility clause is impermissible and, in any event, textually unsound. The

clause reads: “with minimum two years experience at supervisory level in

manufacturing sector in a Small, Medium or Large Industry/Semi

Government/Government Undertaking/Department.” The governing words

are “at supervisory level in manufacturing sector”. The oblique series which

follows i.e. “Industry/Semi Government/Government Undertaking/

Department” merely enumerates the character of the establishment in

which such manufacturing-sector supervisory experience may have been

acquired be that a private industry of any size, a semi-government body, a

government undertaking, or a government department. The obvious

purpose is to specify the ownership of the establishment, not abandonment

of the substantive requirement.

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 35 of 39

49. On the construction of the petitioner, the words “in

manufacturing sector” would apply only to the first limb and become otiose

for the remaining three; any clerical experience in any government

undertaking would qualify, and the deliberate collocation “supervisory level

in manufacturing sector” would be destroyed. A construction which renders

words of a statutory rule surplus must be rejected and the series takes

colour from the controlling phrase (noscitur a sociis — a word is known by

the company it keeps). His reading would also produce the absurdity that

the rule demands manufacturing experience of private-sector candidates

but exempts public-sector candidates from it - a classification with no

conceivable rationale for a post in the Industries & Commerce Department

whose advertised duties include industrial development, MSME

registration, annual returns of commercial production and industrial

surveys. In any event, the author of the rule has consistently understood

and applied the clause as requiring supervisory-level experience in the

manufacturing sector. It is settled that the essential qualifications are the

province of the employer/recruiting authority, and the courts, exercising

judicial review, neither sit in appeal over that understanding nor dilute the

prescription.

50. Further, the contention of the petitioner that Assistant

Manager/Chief Manager is “higher than supervisor” misses the

requirement altogether. The requirement is composite — supervisory level

and manufacturing sector. Even otherwise, MTNL itself has certified that

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 36 of 39

petitioner did not work at supervisory level and that the Company

Secretariat of the Corporate Office is not a manufacturing unit/sector.

51. The judgements relied upon by the petitioner in case of Ajay

Kumar supra and Ram Sarup supra, are on the face of it pertaining to

different set of facts and in the present case petitioner has been out of

service since 8.9.2022; and had been initially allowed to join only after

giving an affidavit. Thus, petitioner cannot claim equity for said service of 4

years.

52. Reference may be made to the judgment passed in Civil

Appeal No. 5942 of 2023 titled as Himakshi vs. Rahul Verma and others,

decided on 20.04.2026 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner,

the relevant extract of which reads as under:-

48. In the present case, the defect is not merely procedural or

incidental, but goes to the root of eligibility itself. The

selected candidate, i.e., the appellant did not fulfil the

essential qualification of "at least five years' work experience

in computer manufacturing/maintenance" as on the relevant

date. Such experience. is of a specialised nature and external

to the post in question, which Couldn't have been acquired by

a candidate after serving as a Computer Hardware Engineer.

At the same time, the plea taken by the unsuccessful

candidate has been accepted in the Letters Patent Appeal,

though consideration for his appointment was not allowed.

Thus, we can presume from the chart referred above in

paragraph 32 of this Judgment, wherein the Committee has

not specified the nature of experience possessed by the

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 37 of 39

candidates even though it was deficient. Therefore, in such a

scenario, the qualification of five years' experience which is

within the minimum qualification, must be understood in its

true sense to mean that the candidates ought to possess prior

hands-on exposure in the field of computer

manufacturing/maintenance fa company of repute. The

experience in service on the said post could not be substituted

by the experience required at the threshold.”

53. The judgment in case of Anantdeep Singh supra is

distinguishable on facts and law.

54. Keeping in view the above discussion, the present CWP-10687-

2024 stands dismissed.

CWP-24474-2024:

In the abovesaid CWP-24474-2024 filed by Tina Parashar,

challenge is to the order dated 4.7.2024 (Annexure P-13 in CWP-24474-

2024) issued by the HPSC, whereby representation dated 30.4.2024 made

by Tina Parashar seeking appointment to post of Assistant Director

(Statistical), has been rejected for the following reasons: –

“In view of above, when the recommendations made by the

Commission have not been set aside and the selection process

has been held valid, the claim of petitioner Tina Parashar

cannot be considered just because the services of Sh. Anil

Kumar were terminated by the Govt. at a later stage after

verification of his experience certificate. The role of the

Commission is limited upto sending of recommendations and in

case any of the selected candidate is found not suitable due to

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 38 of 39

any reason, the Commission cannot send fresh

recommendation containing the name of other candidate as no

waiting list for any selection is prepared by the Commission.

Hence the representation dated 30.04.2024 submitted by Smt.

Tina Parashar is rejected.”

2. It would appear from the record that Tina Parashar is the

candidate next in the order of merit of the same selection. She appears to

fulfil every prescribed qualification: M.Com (2012, MDU Rohtak); two years’

experience as Supervisor in a manufacturing industry from 10.08.2014 to

11.08.2016, and Hindi up to Matric standard — all as disclosed in her

application form (Annexure P-2 in CWP 24474/2024).

3. From the record, it also is clear that Tina Parashar has been

diligently pursuing her rights. Within three days of the declaration of result,

she had made a representation dated 20.09.2018; complaints dated

24.09.2018 and 15.11.2018; and also filed CWP No. 32025 of 2018, pointing

out lack of qualifying experience of Anil Kumar. The maxim actus curiae

neminem gravabit, the act of the Court shall prejudice no one and its

corollary is that the pendency of proceedings cannot defeat the rights of a

diligent litigant, apply in full force and her petition of 2018 was disposed of

only because the first termination had intervened, and she has never slept

over her rights. The time consumed in litigation and in the two rounds

before the department cannot be permitted to defeat her claim. In view of

CWP Nos. 10687 of 2024 (O&M) and

24474 of 2024 (O&M) 39 of 39

the above facts, the objection that she did not raise the issue earlier in

order dated 4.7.2024 is perverse.

4. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition CWP-24474-2024, stands

disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to consider the case of

the petitioner for the appointment to the post of Assistant Director

(Statistics) in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove,

and pass an appropriate order there upon within a period of 4 months from

the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

5. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

11.08.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)

Divyanshi JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No