124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT RUBAL CHA STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. for the * SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. The present LPA has been preferred order dated Petition bearing No. CWP consideration of his certificate produced at th 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant along with his application form certificate. However, the of commercial organization for having two years. The documents. He submits that the same ought to have taken into consideration and the candidature of the appellant has been wrongly rejected. He submits that the learned Single Bench granting him relief as IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: RUBAL CHAUDHARY V STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the appellant. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) The present LPA has been preferred order dated 30.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in Petition bearing No. CWP-9390-2022 filed by consideration of his claim for appointment based on the ex certificate produced at the time of scrutiny of documents was not accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant his application form had submitted a nine years certificate. However, the concerned advertisement of commercial organization for having participated and worked therein for The said certificate was produced at documents. He submits that the same ought to have taken into nsideration and the candidature of the appellant has been wrongly rejected. He submits that the learned Single Bench granting him relief as prayed. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-973-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 1st of April, 2025 ..…...Appellant(s) V/s. .....Respondent(s) SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA The present LPA has been preferred by the appellant assailing 30.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in Writ filed by him whereby his claim for for appointment based on the experience time of scrutiny of documents was not accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant submitted a nine years’ bar experience concerned advertisement required an experience participated and worked therein for said certificate was produced at the time of scrutiny of documents. He submits that the same ought to have taken into nsideration and the candidature of the appellant has been wrongly rejected. He submits that the learned Single Bench has also erred in not Suresh Kumar 2025.04.03 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-973-2025 3. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and find t advertisement, it was necessary for the candidates who ha post of Legal Assistant to upload with application form also specifically mentioned that if the scrutiny of the candidate documents uploaded, be cancelled. 4. It is an admitted position that the appellant scanned copy of the no relevance certificate of having Commercial Organization / Financial Institution the drafting of deeds / agreements / terms / conditions / examinations of legal documents the appellant has never mentioned about certain experience in his application form certificate subsequently at the stage of scrutiny of documents which were admittedly at variance with the documents produced alo application form, the candidature of the appellant was required to be rejected and rightly so the learned Single Bench dismissed the Writ Petition. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we different view. Accordingly, the p 5 (O&M) p. 2 We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and find that as per Clause No. 3.1 and 3.2 of the concerned advertisement, it was necessary for the candidates who ha post of Legal Assistant to upload the scanned copy of the application form reflecting their qualification also specifically mentioned that if the documents produced at the scrutiny of the candidates are found to be at variance with the uploaded, the candidature of such candidates be cancelled. It is an admitted position that the appellant scanned copy of the certificate in respect to no relevance for the purpose of considering his candidature certificate of having worked for at least t Commercial Organization / Financial Institution the drafting of deeds / agreements / terms / conditions / examinations of legal documents, which was required to be produced. It is also found that nt has never mentioned about certain experience in his application form as well. In the circumstances, producing the experience certificate subsequently at the stage of scrutiny of documents which were admittedly at variance with the documents produced alo application form, the candidature of the appellant was required to be rejected and rightly so the learned Single Bench dismissed the Writ In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to take a different view. Accordingly, the present LPA stands We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for Clause No. 3.1 and 3.2 of the concerned advertisement, it was necessary for the candidates who had applied for the the scanned copy of the documents along reflecting their qualifications, experience etc. It was documents produced at the time of are found to be at variance with the of such candidates shall be liable to It is an admitted position that the appellant has uploaded the respect to his Bar experience which has for the purpose of considering his candidature and it was the least two years in Government / Commercial Organization / Financial Institution / Banks with respect to the drafting of deeds / agreements / terms / conditions / examinations of which was required to be produced. It is also found that nt has never mentioned about certain experience in his . In the circumstances, producing the experience certificate subsequently at the stage of scrutiny of documents which were admittedly at variance with the documents produced along with the application form, the candidature of the appellant was required to be rejected and rightly so the learned Single Bench dismissed the Writ do not find any reason to take a resent LPA stands dismissed. Suresh Kumar 2025.04.03 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-973-2025 6. All pending applications in this accordingly. April 1, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 5 (O&M) p. 3 All pending applications in this accordingly. [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA , 2025 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : All pending applications in this case are disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No Suresh Kumar 2025.04.03 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document