IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8097 of 2007 Date of Decision: October 14, 2009 Harbans Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing letter dated 2.5.2007 (Annexure P-3) issued by respondent No.2 i.e. District Education Officer (Elementary), Mansa. Prayer further made is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to mark the presence of the petitioner w.e.f. CWP No.8097 of 2007 [2] 11.5.2007 in the attendance register. It has been brought out that Volunteer for ECCE Centre, Saharna under the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan was to be appointed. The petitioner being eligible for the post, applied and was selected. The petitioner was appointed by virtue of Resolution Annexure P-1. The petitioner joined on 12.4.2007. It has been pointed out that one Karamjit Kaur also sought appointment by way of selection. Her appointment, however, was not made on the ground that she had already been working as EGS Volunteer. It seems that Karamjit Kaur filed a complaint against selection of the petitioner on the ground that her merit had been ignored by the Committee. Taking cognizance of the complaint, respondent No.2 issued letter dated 2.5.2007 for conducting an enquiry whether the rules framed as per letter dated 16.8.2005 had been violated in the matter of appointment of the petitioner. Enquiry report, Annexure P-4, was submitted whereunder, it has been clearly stated that Karamjit Kaur was M.A. (Punjabi) with five years teaching experience. She, however, had been serving and had not submitted her resignation. Next in order of merit was the petitioner. CWP No.8097 of 2007 [3] Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the fact that Karamjit Kaur had been serving as EGS Volunteer, she could not have been selected and therefore, impugned letter dated 2.5.2007 (Annexure P-3) cancelling the selection of the petitioner is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the criteria for selection was the highest qualification which was highlighted as “+2<NTT<ETT<BA<B.ED<MA<M.ED”, and therefore, no illegality can be traced in the action of the respondents in view of the established fact that Karamjit Kaur was the highest qualified person. I have considered the issue. Even learned counsel for the petitioner admits that Karamjit Kaur had higher qualification than the petitioner and therefore, had the first right to selection. The only objection is that Karamjit Kaur was working as EGS Volunteer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to the Court that person who was working as EGS Volunteer, was not eligible to apply for the post. Learned counsel has further not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any instruction or rule which CWP No.8097 of 2007 [4] would disentitle Karamjit Kaur to selection and appointment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it was for the respondents to have offered appointment first to Karamjit Kaur who had the highest qualification. This having not so done, an illegality has been committed which has been corrected by virtue of subsequent action of the respondents. Karamjit Kaur was highest qualified person as is evident from Annexure P-1, the resolution itself. The petitioner has not been able to draw the attention of the Court towards any infirmity in the claim of the said person (Karamjit Kaur). I further find that Karamjit Kaur has not been impleaded as respondent although the relief claimed in the petition would directly affect the said person. In view of the above, I find that action of the respondents is reasonable and consequently, the petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) October 14, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?