CWP No. 664 of 2010. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 664 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 27th October, 2010. Gurvinder Singh & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Anr. Respondents through Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioners were appointed as substitute Computer Teachers by the Punjab Information and Technology Society under the ICT Project. The relevant terms and conditions laid down for their contractual appointment for a period of one year, were as follows:- “[iii] They will have to acquire the qualification approved by the BOG of PICTES for future recruitment of Computer staff otherwise their services may be terminated without giving any show-cause notice or assigning any reason. During this period, the Substitute Computer Teachers possessing the degree/post graduate qualification will be given Rs.4500/- p.m. and those Substitute Computer Teachers who are possessing PGDCA or any other qualification, which is not approved by BOG will be given Rs.3500/- per month. The substitute Computer Teachers will have to execute an agreement that they have enrolled themselves for higher qualification as approved by BOG, PICTES on or before 08.08.2007. CWP No. 664 of 2010. ::-2-:: [iv] Those Substitute Computer Teachers, who possess the required qualification shall be entitled to sit in the written examination to be conducted by PICTES for recruitment of computer staff in future. After qualifying this examination, they will be appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs.7,000/- p.m. The Substitute Computer Teachers will be given three chances in a period of 1½ years to pass the written examination. [v] The teachers so appointed will be considered for formation of a separate cadre then the cadre of present computer teachers”. [2]. The petitioners are now aggrieved by the public notice dated 04.01.2010 [Annexure P-11] whereby the respondent authorities have granted relaxation so as to give one more opportunity and have decided to hold a fresh written test for those Computer Teachers who had secured less than the minimum bench- mark of 35 marks [for General Category candidates] and 20 marks [for reserved category candidates] in the written test conducted at the time of their appointments. According to the petitioners, no such condition was incorporated in the initial notice dated 27.03.2008 and that they were required to pass the written examination only for increase in their salary from `4500/- to `7000/- per month and not for their continuation as per the current contract. [3]. The respondents in their reply/affidavit have explained that the petitioners could not secure the minimum bench-mark prescribed for the reserved and general category candidates, as the case may be, and thereafter three more chances have already been given to them to qualify the written test and it is only by relaxation that a fresh opportunity has been granted to the petitioners. CWP No. 664 of 2010. ::-3-:: [4]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that no case to interfere with the impugned action is made out. I say so firstly for the reason that the petitioners have been appointed purely on contractual basis for a period of one year which has already expired. The respondents are, thus, well within their right to terminate the services of the petitioners and/or make fresh appointments in accordance with law so as to infuse better talent in the education stream which is undoubtedly crucial for the betterment of our future generations. Secondly, the petitioners who are unwilling to achieve the minimum bench mark/and want to continue at the meager salary of `4500/-, obviously lack initiatives and are apparently unsuitable to impart technical and skilled education to the young children. [5]. Learned counsel for the respondents states that as a matter of concession, the petitioners would be allowed to continue till 31.12.2010, subject to their passing the written test, failing which the authorities are inclined to make fresh recruitments. No fault with such like uniform policy decision meant to achieve larger public interest, namely, appointment of better and meritorious candidates, can be found. [6]. The contention of the petitioners that there was no minimum bench-marks prescribed, is wholly misconceived for the reason that admittedly a written test was held at the time of their appointments and there was nothing un-reasonable to expect the candidates to secure 35 [general category] and 20 [reserved category] marks, respectively so as to be eligible for the subject appointments. Similarly, the petitioners can not seek exemption from CWP No. 664 of 2010. ::-4-:: passing the suitability test merely because their students have performed well in the examinations. No such provision in Rules/Policy has been brought on record. [7]. Dismissed. October 27, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE