IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 9622 of 2011

Date of Decision : 7.1.2013

Amandeep Kaur and another

..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others

..... Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

Present:-

Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of

the order dated 28.3.2011 (Annexure-P-19), passed by the Director Public

Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, vide which the claim of the

petitioners has been rejected for appointment to the post of Sewing Teacher

against the advertisement dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure-P-1) by stating that the

Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board is the appropriate

recommending authority and the names of the petitioners have not been

recommended by the said authority.

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that only 27

names were recommended out of which some of the candidates, details of

which are supplied by the respondents themselves under the Right to

Information Act, 2005, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure-P-11

with the writ petition, according to which, 11 of the general category

candidates out of the 32 general category candidates belonging to Sewing

CWP No. 9622 of 2011

-2-

Mistress(s) were found to be ineligible. In an earlier writ petition preferred by

the petitioners, an affidavit dated 2.2.2011 (Annexure-P-18) was filed by Shri

Krishan Kumar, IAS, Director General School Education, Punjab-cum-State

Project Director, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Authority, Punjab, wherein it was

stated that after the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board had become

defunct, a meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary

to Government of Punjab on 15.5.2008 and Special Selection Committee was

constituted to look into the alleged discrepancies in the merit list prepared by

the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board. On going through the said

selection list, it was found that some of the candidates were ineligible. The

Special Selection Committee remained in force from 15.5.2008 to 15.12.2009

after the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board was re-constituted and

the entire record of the selection process was handed over to it. On the basis

of this affidavit filed by the respondents, this Court disposed of CWP No.

8888 of 2010, vide order dated 14.5.2010 (Annexure-P-17) by giving

directions to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass a

speaking order as they had already represented on 3.3.2010. The claim of the

petitioners has now been rejected by the respondents on the ground that no

fresh appointment is being made from the recommendations which were

earlier made by the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board and further

the names of the petitioners have never been recommended by the Punjab

Subordinate Service Selection Board.

This action of the respondents cannot be sustained in the light of

the fact that when they had themselves found 11 of the selected

candidates from the general category to be ineligible and the merit list

was also found to be defective, the proper course would have been that after

CWP No. 9622 of 2011

-3-

the re-constitution of the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board, the

matter ought to have been re-looked into and thereafter, decision of the claim

of the petitioners should have been made keeping the merit of the petitioners

in view. In case, the petitioners were found to be making the grade against the

posts advertised in accordance with the criteria which has been laid down and

followed by the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board while making

earlier recommendations, the same should have been given effect to. The

action thus of the respondents cannot be sustained.