Judgment

Sanjeev Kumar, J.-The petitioner in this petition has sought a Writ of Certiorari for quashing Communication No. DSEJ/Legal/23412 dated 14.08.2017 issued by respondent No.2 whereby the claim of the petitioner for counting her service w.e.f 07.02.2004 for regularization as General Line Teacher has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to treat her services, to be governed by the old CSR Rules for the purpose of pension and not under the New Pension Scheme which has been introduced w.e.f 01.01.2010. A direction has also been sought to the respondents to grant the petitioner arrears of pay instead of benefit of notional service granted to him.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the first prayer is concerned, the same has already been granted by the respondents and the services of the petitioner as ReT have been reckoned w.e.f 07.02.2004 and as General Line Teacher w.e.f 07.02.2009. He, however, submits that the grievance of the petitioner, that now remains to be redressed, is two fold: (i) that he is entitled to arrears of salary as General Line Teacher w.e.f 07.02.2009 till he was actually appointed and; (ii) that taking his appointment as General Line Teacher on 07.02.2009, he would be governed by old Pension Rules and not by the New Pension Scheme which has been introduced w.e.f 01.01.2010.

3. The case has a chequered history and has its genesis in the Advertisement Notice issued by respondent No.3 somewhere in the year 2003 for filling up of two posts of ReT in the New Primary School, Nihalpur Simbal of Tehsil R.S.Pura. The petitioner along with other candidates responded to the said Notification, but the petitioner, though higher up in the merit was not considered on the ground that she was not the resident of revenue village Nihalpur, Simbal and, accordingly, two candidates namely Surinder Kour and Prito Devi were selected and appointed as ReT.

4. The petitioner, who was better in merit than the aforesaid selected candidates, submitted a representation to the respondents. The said representation was accorded consideration and the grievance of the petitioner was found genuine. Consequently, the orders of engagement of aforesaid candidates Surinder Kour and Prito Devi as ReT in the aforesaid School were cancelled by the competent authority vide order dated 06.07.2004. The said cancellation order became the subject matter of challenge in SWP No. 1094/2004 which was allowed by a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.10.2005 and the order of cancellation of appointments of aforesaid candidates was quashed. The petitioner assailed the order of learned Single Judge in LPA (SW) No.204/2005 before the Division Bench of this Court. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2007 and the order of learned Single Judge was set aside.

5. In compliance to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the appointment of Surinder Kour and Prito Devi came to be cancelled by the ZEO, Miran Sahib, R.S.Pura vide his order dated 05.09.2007 and consequently, the petitioner herein along with one Daljeet Kour came to be appointed in their place in terms of another order issued by the ZEO, Miran Sahib, R.S.Pura on 07.09.2007. The petitioner joined her services as ReT in the concerned School on 07.09.2007 itself. The candidates namely Surinder Kour and Prito Devi, who felt aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 14.03.2013. It is pertinent to mention here that in view of the interim directions granted by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP on 21.09.2007 which came to be vacated only with the dismissal of the SLP on 14.03.2013, the order of appointment of the petitioner could not be given effect to. It was only after the dismissal of SLP, the Director, School Education vide his order dated 17.06.2013 appointed