Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. Petitioner, who was a candidate for appointment to the post of Chief Inspector in the Haryana Roadways, which was advertised on 07.05.1989, through this writ petition is challenging the selection of respondents No. 4 to 9 on the ground that they are not eligible as per the qualifications required for appointment and also on the ground the he is more meritorious to them and, therefore, deserves to be appointed. Prayer has been made for quashing the selection of these private respondents with a further prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Chief Inspector. 2. Briefly the facts as per the writ are that an advertisement No. 1/89 was issued by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana/respondent No. 2 (in short the Board) for filling up the post of Chief Inspectors in the Haryana Roadways in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 from the candidates having educational qualification of Graduation and two years experience in Government/Semi Government or Public Undertakings/Roadways Fleet with Hindi upto Matric and age 17 to 35 years. 3. In response to the aforesaid advertisement, petitioner and others applied for the said posts. The petitioner was found eligible and was allotted Roll No. 17. He was called for the interview, in which he participated on 15.01.1990, but his name did not find mention in the list of selected candidates. He on inquiry came to know that respondents No. 4 to 9 were not fulfilling the requisite qualification for the post of Chief Inspectors and, thus, not called for the interview initially on 15-16.01.1990 (the dates of interview), however, they were interviewed on 23.06.1990 under political influence on change of Chairman of the Board. It has been specifically averred by the petitioner in para-8 of the writ petition that respondent No. 4-Khub Ram son of Shri Manfool and respondent No. 8-Ram Niwas Rathi son of Shri Mahi Ram, produced bogus experience certificates and on the basis of those bogus experience certificates, they were selected. Qua respondents No. 5 to 7 and 9, it has been specifically stated in para-8-A that they did not fulfil the requisite qualifications and have been selected because of their political influence, however, no specific details about these respondents have been mentioned in the writ petition as to their ineligibility. Qua respondents No. 5 to 7 and 9, it has been specifically stated in para-8-A that they did not fulfil the requisite qualifications and have been selected because of their political influence, however, no specific details about these respondents have been mentioned in the writ petition as to their ineligibility. It is on this basis that challenge has been posed to the selection made by the Board to the post of Chief Inspectors in the Haryana Roadways. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition, wherein respondent No. 2/the Board has not specifically filed any reply to the averment made by the petitioner in paras-8 and 8-A of the writ petition. It has merely been stated by the Board that respondents fulfilled the requisite qualification and experience and, thus, were selected to the advertised post. However, respondent No. 3, i.e., Transport Commissioner, Haryana, has filed a detailed reply, wherein qualification and experience of respondent No. 4-Khub Ram and respondent No. 8-Ram Niwas Rathi has been given. The certificates submitted by them in support of their experience have also been attached with the written statement, according to which these certificates were issued by the private transporters and, therefore, they do not fulfil the requirement of experience, as per advertisement dated 07.05.1989, according to which two years experience in Government/Semi Government or Public Undertakings/Roadways Fleet was required. He further contends that the experience certificate, which had been submitted by respondent No. 4-Khub Ram overlapped for the same period and it is not just possible that he would have worked at the same time in two different places and, thus, these documents are forged certificates. He on this basis prays for quashing of appointments of respondents No. 4 and 8 and appointment of the petitioner in their place. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection, wherein they have stated that the selection under scrutiny in the present case had already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court, vide Order dated 13.03.1991 passed in CWP No. 11320 of 1990 Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana and others. He contends that respondent No. 5-Devi Lal and respondent No. 6-Ran Singh were respondents No. 4 and 5 in that writ petition, therefore, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and the same order deserves to be passed. 6. He contends that respondent No. 5-Devi Lal and respondent No. 6-Ran Singh were respondents No. 4 and 5 in that writ petition, therefore, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and the same order deserves to be passed. 6. Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 and counsel for private respondents No. 4 to 7 and 9 could not dispute that the experience certificates submitted by respondents No. 4 and 8 were issued by private transporters. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 8. The contention of counsel for the respondents that the same selection had been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 11320 of 1990 Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana and others, vide its Order dated 13.03.1991 and, therefore, the present writ petition also deserves to be dismissed, cannot be accepted. The records of the above mentioned writ petition was summoned by this Court, vide Order dated 24.09.2010. A perusal of the same would show that no specific details about the selected candidates and their experience was spelt out in the said writ petition. What was stated therein merely was that the respondent No. 5-Devi Lal and respondent No. 6- Ran Singh did not fulfil the requisite experience for the post of Chief Inspector, on which they were appointed. Allegations of political malafides were also made in the said writ petition. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition by passing the following Order :- "Present :- Mr. Surya Kant, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Sood, AAG Haryana. CM is allowed as prayed for. In view of reply contained in paras 11, 12, and 13 of the return, we find no ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. Sd/- (G.C. Mittal) Judge March 13, 1991. Sd/- (S. S. Grewal) Judge" 9. A perusal of the reply filed by the Board in paras-11 to 13 to the writ petition, i.e., CWP No. 11320 of 1990, would show that an objection was raised by the Board that the allegations were vague and it was further said that the appointments were made, considering the experience certificates after taking into consideration the merits of respondents No. 5 and 6, namely Devi Lal and Ran Singh respectively. 10. 10. It would not be out of way to mention here that in the present writ petition, although, Devi Lal and Ran Singh have been impleaded as respondents No. 5 and 6 respectively, but there are no specific allegations against them. Respondent No. 4-Khub Ram and respondent No. 8-Ram Niwas Rathi were not respondents in that writ petition nor any allegations were made against their qualifications or eligibility. It would also not be out of way to mention here that no reply was filed by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, to the writ petition. The decision of the Division Bench, thus, would not act as res judicata qua the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 8. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner fulfils the requisite qualification, both educational and experience prescribed in the advertisement dated 07.05.1989 (Annexure-P-1). It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was interviewed for the said post. The question which requires consideration of this Court is as to whether respondents No. 4 to 9 fulfil the required qualification for appointment to the post of Chief Inspector, Haryana Roadways. Specific details and the reasons with regard to the eligibility or selection of respondents No. 5 to 7 and 9 have not been enumerated by the petitioner in his writ petition. Challenge has primarily been posed to the ineligibility of respondent No. 4-Khub Ram son of Manfool Ram and respondent No. 8-Ram Niwas Rathi son of Mahi Ram, on the ground that they do not have the required experience certificates as per the advertisement. Details of the qualification and experience of respondent No. 4 and 8 has been given by respondent No. 3/Transport Commissioner, Haryana, in the written statement filed in para-8 thereof, which reads as follow :- "Sr. No. Name Roll No. Qualifications 1. xxx xxx xxx 2. Khub Ram 100 B.A. 3rd Division March, 1988 Experience :- Worked as Checker in Shyam Bus Service at Sangaria is from June 1986 to June 1988 (ii) Worked as Assistant Manager in Delhi Pepsu Roadways from 01.09.1984 to 10.03.1987. Remarks :- He stated in column 9 of the application form that he worked as regular Inspector since June 1986 to June 1988 in Shyam Bus Service at Sangaria. Remarks :- He stated in column 9 of the application form that he worked as regular Inspector since June 1986 to June 1988 in Shyam Bus Service at Sangaria. But he has also enclosed one certificate to this effect where it has been stated that he worked as Assistant Manager from 01.09.1984 to 10.03.1987 in the Delhi Pepsu Roadways, but there is no mention of this period in column NO. 9 of the application form. 3. xxx xxx xxx 4. Ram Niwas Rathi 134 B.A. 3rd Division September, 1978 Experience :- Worked as Inspector in Bharat Darshan Travels in Ashiyana Lodge Hissar from 01.04.1978 to 24.04.1980. Date of issuance of experience certificate is not mentioned. Remarks :- He has not stated anything regarding experience in column 9 of the application form but an experience certificate from Bharat Darshan Tavelers in Ashyiana Lodge Hissar was submitted by him for working as Inspector from 01.04.1978 to 24.04.1980." 12 The experience certificates of respondent No. 4-Khub Ram are appended as Annexure-R-2 and Annexure-R-2-A respectively. According to Annexure-R-2, dated 05.06.1989, Khub Ram had worked with the Shyam Bus Service, Sangeria, District Ganga Nagar from June, 1986 to June, 1988, as a Field Staff (Checker) for two years. The said certificate had been signed by the Manager/Partner Gobind Khadaria. Annexure-R-2-A dated 15.03.1987 had been issued by Delhi Pepsu Roadways (Regd.) Ghaziabad (UP). According to this certificate, Khub Ram- respondent No. 4 had worked from 01.09.1984 to 10.03.1987 as a Assistant Manager. This certificate was again signed by the Partner of the firm. A perusal of these annexures leaves no manner of doubt that both these certificates had been issued by the private transporters and above all, the period (June 1986 to 10.03.1987) for which they had been issued overlapped with each other and were on different posts under different employers at different places which does not require any further observation of this Court regarding their authenticity or veracity. 13. Now, coming to the experience certificate submitted by respondent No. 8- Ram Niwas Rathi, copy of which has been appended as Annexure-R-4 with the reply, the same had been issued by Bharat Darshan Travellers, according to which respondent No. 8-Ram Niwas Rathi had worked as Inspector from 01.04.1978 to 24.04.1980. This again is a certificate issued by private transporter and strangely enough, it does not bear the date of issuance of the same. This again is a certificate issued by private transporter and strangely enough, it does not bear the date of issuance of the same. The eligibility as per advertisement dated 07.05.1989 issued by the respondent No. 2/Board for appointment to the post of Chief Inspector, Haryana Roadways, is as follow :- "E.C. i) Graduation ii) Two years experience in Govt./Semi Govt. or Public Undertakings/Roadways Fleet. iii) Hindi upto Matric. Age 17 to 35 years." 14. According to the above qualification, experience of two years in Government/Semi Government or Public Undertakings/Roadways Fleet was required, which neither respondent No. 4-Khub Ram nor respondent no. 8- Ram Niwas Rathi possessed as the experience certificates submitted by them were from the private transporters. There appears to be substance in the allegations made by the petitioner about political influence having been exercised in appointment of respondents No. 4 and 8, but in the light of above facts, no findings need to be returned in this regard now by this Court. Accordingly, the appointment of respondents No. 4 and 8 being not in accordance with the advertisement, as these respondents do not possess the required experience of two years in Government/Semi Government or Public Undertakings/Roadways Fleet, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. 15. In view of the above, present writ petition is allowed. The selection and appointment of respondent No. 4-Khub Ram son of Shri Manfool Singh and respondent No. 8-Ram Niwas Rathi son of Shri Mahi Ram, is hereby quashed. A direction is issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Chief Inspector from the date of appointment of the respondents No. 4 or 8 whichever was earlier with all consequential benefits. 16. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already working in the Haryana Roadways. 17. If that be so, monetary benefits which the petitioner has earned from the date of appointment of the respondents No. 4 and 8 as Chief Inspector till the date of his appointment be adjusted, while granting monetary benefits to him. The needful be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.