Satish Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors.

1
CWP-26859-2014


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

202
CWP-26859-2014
Date of Decision: 24.08.2026



Satish Kumar
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR


Present : Mr. Shashi Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana.

Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate
for respondent No.4.




HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the
nature of certiorari for quashing selection list (Annexure P2) of respondent
No.4 as Fitter (BCB) because same has been made by adopting policy of
pick and choose, as name of respondent No.4 does not figure in the list of
shortlisted candidates. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to prepare fresh selection list of
Fitter (BCB) after excluding the name of respondent No.4 and to stay
appointments on the basis of selection list (Annexure P-2).
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.01 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
CWP-26859-2014


2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia , contends that the
petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement
for appointment to the post of Fitter Instructor in the Industrial Training
Institute on contractual basis and was eligible for consideration under the
BCB category. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the selection of
respondent No.4, who, according to the petitioner, was not included in the
original list of shortlisted candidates (Annexure P-1) but was subsequently
included in the revised selection list (Annexure P-2) and ultimately selected.
Learned counsel refers to the selection criteria dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure
R-III) and submits that experience marks were required to be awarded only
for experience acquired after completion of the requisite qualification. It is
contended that respondent No.4 had acquired the NTC in Fitter trade in 2001
and CTI in 2009, whereas the experience certificate produced by him
reflects experience prior thereto, and therefore, such experience could not
have been taken into consideration for awarding experience marks. Learned
counsel further submits that respondent No.4 was awarded 10 marks for
experience, whereas the petitioner was awarded only 6 marks, which
materially affected the comparative merit of the parties. On this basis, it is
contended that the petitioner ought to have been selected against the BCB
category in place of respondent No.4. The petitioner also questions the
inclusion of respondent No.4 in the revised selection list despite his name
not figuring in the original shortlist and alleges that the selection process
was not conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The petitioner
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.01 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
CWP-26859-2014


accordingly seeks quashing of the selection of respondent No.4 and
preparation of a fresh selection list after excluding his candidature. The
petitioner had specifically raised the issue regarding award of 10 marks for
experience and asserted that the experience relied upon by respondent No.4
was not liable to be counted.
3. Per contra , learned State Counsel opposes the prayer made by
learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the selection was
conducted in accordance with the prescribed criteria and on the basis of
merit. Learned State Counsel submits that, as per the applicable service rules
dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure R-IV), the essential qualification for the post of
Fitter Instructor is National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship
Certificate in the relevant trade as per Appendix-BI (Annexure R-IV), along
with Craft Instructor Training Course (CITC) in the relevant trade and five
years' practical teaching experience, including the training period. The
selection criteria further provide for two marks for each completed year of
experience over and above the requisite essential experience, subject to a
maximum of 10 marks.
3.1 Learned State Counsel further submits that the petitioner had 8
years and 9 months of total experience, out of which five years were
required to satisfy the essential experience qualification and, consequently,
only 3 years and 9 months of experience remained as extra experience, for
which he was rightly awarded 6 marks. Respondent No.4, on the other hand,
had 10 years and 4 months of experience and, after excluding the requisite
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.01 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
CWP-26859-2014


five years, had 5 years and 4 months of extra experience and was, therefore,
rightly awarded the maximum 10 marks for experience. The respondents
specifically maintain that the experience of respondent No.4 was counted
from after his acquiring the National Trade Certificate and was considered
on the basis of his ITI/CTI qualification and not on the basis of his
subsequent Mechanical Engineering diploma.
3.2 Learned State Counsel further submits that respondent No.4
had completed his ITI diploma in July 2000 and CTI and subsequently
pursued the Mechanical Engineering diploma course, which was a higher
qualification and not the essential qualification for the post. The respondents
submit that the requisite qualification for the post was NTC/NAC with CITC
and five years' practical teaching experience, and that the Mechanical
Engineering diploma was only a higher qualification carrying separate
marks under the selection criteria. It is thus contended that the experience of
respondent No.4 was rightly counted on the basis of his ITI/CTI
qualification and no experience was counted on the basis of his Mechanical
Engineering diploma.
3.3 Learned State Counsel further submitted that the petitioner
secured 63.96 marks , whereas respondent No.4 secured 64.24 marks , and
therefore respondent No.4, being higher in merit, was rightly selected. It is
contended that the selection process was fair and transparent and that no
material has been placed on record to establish any mala fide or
arbitrariness. The respondents accordingly submit that the allegation of any
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.01 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
CWP-26859-2014


policy of “pick and choose” is wholly unfounded and that the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
3.4 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits
that there is no mala fide in the appointment of respondent No.4 and,
therefore, prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. It is further
submitted that the petitioner possesses 3 years and 9 months of experience
beyond the minimum eligibility condition of 5 years, whereas respondent
No.4 possesses 5 years, 3 months and 29 days of experience beyond the
minimum eligibility condition of 5 years. Learned counsel, accordingly,
submits that respondent No.4 possesses substantially more experience than
the petitioner and that his appointment does not suffer from any illegality or
mala fide warranting interference by this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the case file with their able assistance.
5. It transpires that the petitioner participated in the selection
process for the post of Instructor in ITI on contractual basis . The criteria for
selection, as contained in memo dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure R-III), reads as
under:
“ Criteria for selection
No. Qualification Score/Marks
1. Essential Qualification
Max. Score +50
i) Diploma in relevant trade or
Above 50%, 1 score for per increase in %age.
ii) NTC/NAC and CTI
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.01 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
CWP-26859-2014


For example for 51% in diploma, score=1
For example for 52% in diploma, score=2
And so on with maximum score of 50
OR
Score=(%age in NTC/NAC-50)+(%age in CTI-
50)/2
Max. score 50
2. Matriculation Max. Score +50
Above 50%, 1 score for per increase in %age.
For example for 51% in diploma, score=1
For example for 52% in diploma, score=2
And so on with maximum score of 40
3. 10+2 Max. Score=20
Above 60%, 1 score for two increase in %age
For example of 64%, score=2
And so on with maximum score of 20
4. Extra qualification over and
above essential qualification i.e.
BE/B.Tech/Diploma/CTI
Score=20
(Qualification i.e. BE/B.Tech/Diploma/
CTI/Graduation in relevant subjects)
5. Industrial/Teaching Experience
over and above the requires
essential experience
Max.Score=10
2 marks for each extra year of experience with
maximum score of 10
6. Interview Max. Score=10
Total score=150
6. The respondents, in their written statement, have specifically
taken the stand that the experience of the candidates was counted after
acquisition of the requisite qualification. It has been stated that, as per the
service rules dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure R-IV), the prescribed qualification
for the post of Fitter Instructor is National Trade Certificate/National
Apprenticeship Certificate in the relevant trade as per Appendix-BI, with
Craft Instructor Training Course (CITC) in the relevant trade and five years'
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.01 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
CWP-26859-2014


practical teaching experience, including the training period.
It has further
been stated that, under the aforesaid selection criteria, two marks are to be
awarded for each extra year of experience over and above the required
essential experience, subject to a maximum of 10 marks. Accordingly, the
petitioner, having 3 years and 8 months of experience over and above the
requisite essential experience, was awarded 6 marks. The comparative
statement of petitioner and respondent No.4 reads as under:-
Petitioner Respondent
Qualification Passing
year
%age qualification Passing
year
%age
Metric 2000 59.16% Metric 1998 56.33%
NTC (Fitter) 2004 75.28% NTC (Fitter) 2001 67.57%
CTI (Fitter) 2008 72.33% CTI (Fitter) 2009 74.25%
Date Experience
Date Experience

Y M D
Y M D
14.10.2004 to
27.7.2007
2 9 14 NAC (15.4.02 to
14.4.2003)
01 00 00
05.08.2008 to
31.08.2010
2 - 27 15.04.2002 to
14.04.2003
01 -- 01
01.09.2010 to
08.08.2011
-- 11 08 02.02.2004 to
25.06.2008
04 04 23
06.08.2010 TO
11.08.2011
01 -- 05
Experience 5 09 ---
+NAC+CTI
Experience + NAC 07 04 29
+CTI
03 years
03 years
As per Service Rule 08 09 00
2013
As per Service Rule 10 04 29
2013
5 years
5 years
Total extra
experience
03 09 00 Total Extra
Experience
05 04 29
7. The respondents have further specifically stated that the
experience of respondent No.4 was counted only on the basis of ITI/CTI and
no experience was counted on the basis of diploma. It has been explained
that the requisite educational qualification for the post of Instructor in ITI
was NTC/NAC in the relevant trade with CITC and five years' practical
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.01 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
CWP-26859-2014


teaching experience, including the training period, whereas the diploma in
the relevant trade was an alternative to NTC/NAC and CTI under the
essential qualification clause, while an additional qualification over and
above the essential qualification carried 20 marks under the selection
criteria . It has further been stated that respondent No.4 was employed as
Fitter Instructor in MD Polytechnic from 06.08.2010 to 11.08.2011 and from
27.07.2013 to 26.02.2014 on the basis of ITI/CTI qualification and that his
experience was counted only on that basis.
8. The comparative particulars furnished by the respondents show
that the petitioner acquired NTC (Fitter) in the year 2004, whereas
respondent No.4 acquired NTC (Fitter) in the year 2001. The experience of
the petitioner has been calculated at 8 years and 9 months , out of which
five years were treated as the requisite essential experience, leaving 3 years
and 9 months as extra experience. In the case of respondent No.4, the
experience has been calculated at 10 years, 4 months and 29 days , out of
which five years were treated as the requisite essential experience, leaving 5
years, 4 months and 29 days as extra experience. Consequently, the
petitioner was awarded 6 marks, whereas respondent No.4 was awarded the
maximum 10 marks under the experience component.
9. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the experience
of respondent No.4 ought to have been reckoned only from the date of
acquisition of CTI (Craft Instructor Training Course). However, the said
contention does not find support from the criteria contained in Annexure
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.01 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9
CWP-26859-2014


R-III. The criteria provide for award of marks for ‘Industrial/Teaching
Experience over and above the required essential experience’ and do not
stipulate that such experience is to be reckoned only from the date of
acquisition of CTI. No such stipulation is discernible from the selection
criteria dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure R-III). The respondents have
specifically clarified that the experience of respondent No.4 was counted on
the basis of his ITI/CTI qualification and not on the basis of his subsequent
diploma.
10. It is further significant that the petitioner has not filed any
replication to the written statement filed by respondents No.1 to 3. Thus, the
specific stand taken by the respondents regarding the manner in which the
experience of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 was computed
remains uncontroverted on record. No material has been placed before this
Court to demonstrate that the experience marks awarded to respondent No.4
were contrary to the prescribed selection criteria or that the selection
committee acted arbitrarily or with any extraneous consideration.
11. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution, cannot substitute a criterion of its own for the
criterion prescribed by the employer/selection authority. In the present case,
the selection criteria were specifically prescribed vide Annexure R-III and
the respondents have furnished the basis on which the experience marks
were awarded to the respective candidates. The petitioner has failed to
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.01 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10
CWP-26859-2014


establish that respondent No.4 was granted any experience marks contrary to
the prescribed criteria.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground
to interfere in the present case and is dismissed accordingly.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE

24.08.2026
Puneet Chawla

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.01 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document