IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.3102 of 2007 Date of decision: 6.8.2008 Sukhjeet Kaur -----Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. PS Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. PS Khurana, Advocate for respondent No.4. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks a direction to consider the petitioner eligible for the post of Primary Teacher under The Punjab Municipal Corporation Primary Teachers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). 2. Case of the petitioner is that vide notification dated 22.9.2006, Annexure P.9, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, Civil Writ Petition No.3102 of 2007 respondent No.1 issued an advertisement for filling up 29 posts of Primary teachers. Therein, prescribed educational qualification was 10+2, ETT and Punjabi upto Matric. The petitioner did not have the ETT qualification and could not be considered as eligible. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that under Rule 10(2) of the Rules (set out in para 6 of the petition), it is mentioned that in case of non-availability of ETT candidates, candidates having BA/B.Sc/B.Com and B.Ed qualification will be considered for appointment to the service. However, such candidates have to undergo orientation training of six months within five years of joining service. The petitioner possesses the said qualification but in the advertisement, the said qualification has not been specified even in case of non-availability of ETT candidates. Since ETT candidates were not available and the post remained vacant, the petitioner was not considered eligible even though the rules make the petitioner eligible. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not dispute that one post remained vacant and as per rules, the petitioner was eligible but as per notification, the eligibility was restricted only to ETT candidates and in case of non-availability, the alternative qualification specified in the rules was not mentioned in the advertisement. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.3102 of 2007 5. In the reply, stand of respondent No.1 is that Selection Committee decided the qualification and 11 candidates higher in merit than the petitioner were available. 6. In view of undisputed position that under the rules, the petitioner was eligible, if no other ETT candidate was available, denial of the right to be treated as eligible on account of omission in the advertisement, cannot be upheld. Availability of candidates with higher merit can also not be a ground not to consider the petitioner when other candidates have also not been considered. 7. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be considered eligible for the vacant post alongwith other similarly placed candidates and further action may be taken in accordance with law. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 6, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3