IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1058 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.10.2009 Prabha Narula. -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. M.R. Narula, Husband of the appellant-in-person. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the review application of the appellant. 2. The appellant was working as teacher and made claim for Selection Grade. On 4.2.1994, order for grant of Selection Grade provisionally was passed in her favour in compliance of order of this Court dated 2.11.1993 in C.W.P. No.14280 of 1992, directing claim of the petitioner in her representation to be considered in accordance with law. Later, it came to the notice of the concerned department that the appellant was not entitled to Selection Grade as per her seniority. LPA No.1058 of 2009 Accordingly, vide letter dated 20.1.1995, it was observed that there being mistake in calculation of posts and case of appellant not being covered by number of eligible persons in the seniority list, the Selection Grade was liable to be cancelled. The appellant was afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter and thereafter, impugned order dated 13.3.1995 was passed, withdrawing the selection grade. Against the said order, the appellant filed C.W.P. No.5716 of 1995. The said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 19.9.2007 with the following observations:- “The petitioner was serving as a JBT Teacher in Government High School, Dhani Mahu and was at Sr. No.73 in the seniority list. She was granted the Selection Grade on 9.8.1973. However, subsequently the respondents realized that the Selection Grade has wrongly been given to the petitioner because the same was given on the total number of posts including permanent and temporary posts, whereas it was given in the ratio of 6:4 for male and female respectively. The petitioner having seniority No.73 was inadvertently granted the Selection Grade, which has been withdrawn in accordance with law. The ratio of male and female for Selection Grade has been given in detail in Para No.3 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.” 3. Thereafter, the appellant filed review application, stating that Selection Grade had been allowed to all teachers and C & D employees of Haryana on the total strength of posts – 2 LPA No.1058 of 2009 permanent and temporary. The calculation in Bhiwani district was made only with reference to permanent teachers. The said review application was also dismissed with the following findings:- “By calculating the number of selection grade posts, as per the aforementioned ratio, the same was worked out to be 63 upto 31.3.1979, for lady teachers. The name of the petitioner figured at Seniority No.73 and was thus, not entitled to be awarded the selection grade and hence the selection grade released to the applicant-petitioner was withdrawn by the respondents. Before withdrawing the selection grade the applicant-petitioner was served with a show cause notice, to which she submitted her reply and thereafter, the selection grade granted to the petitioner was withdrawn. From the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that as the name of the petitioner was at S.No.73, whereas the selection grade which became available for lady teachers was 63 only, hence the applicant- petitioner was not entitled to be granted the selection grade. In view of the above, there is no merit in the review application and the same is dismissed.” 4. We have heard the husband of the appellant, in person, who read over the grounds of appeal. 5. The issue of calculation of posts, is primarily a question of fact. Learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that Selection Grade could be awarded only to those falling upto serial No.63 in the seniority list while the serial number of the appellant in the seniority list was 73. It has not been stated by 3 LPA No.1058 of 2009 the appellant that any other person junior to her in the seniority list has been awarded the Selection Grade. We do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 6. The appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that if any payment has been made to the appellant in pursuance of earlier order, granting the Selection Grade, the said amount be not recovered. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 21, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 4