IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.73 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.8.2009 Dr. (Mrs.) Rupinder Kaur Natt. -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Manmohan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate & Mr. M.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 to 5. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. This order will dispose of L.P.A. Nos.73 and 74 of 2007, as both arise out of the claim of the appellant to backwages and seniority. 3. The appellant was a candidate for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer advertised vide advertisement dated 1.7.1996 (Annexure P-13). In all 46 posts were advertised, out of which, three posts were reserved for Sportspersons. Claim of the appellant was for a reserved post meant for sportspersons. The LPA No.73 of 2007 selection process was challenged and vide judgment dated 11.5.1998 in C.W.P. Nos.18406 of 1996 Dr. Adesh Singla and 3 others v. State of Punjab and 20 others, a Division Bench of this Court finding deficiencies in the interviews, directed the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab to re-interview the candidates and prepare a fresh selection list for appointment. Accordingly, fresh selections were made and result was declared on 2.2.2000. The appellant was not selected. The appellant filed writ petition, seeking quashing of result of selection and direction to recommend her name against the posts reserved for Sports Persons. Main grievance in the writ petition was that marks for the Sports Category were not correctly awarded. The appellant had participated in Zonal Youth Festival, which was not taken into account. 4. In reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab, it was stated that the appellant secured 69.5 marks while last candidate selected in the Sports Category secured 71.5 marks and the last candidate selected candidate in the General Category secured 70.5 marks. Candidates in the Waiting List relating to General Category and Sports Category had 70 marks. Criteria for selection was as per Annexure R-1. As per Annexure R-1, total marks were 100 marks. Marks for qualification and experience were 75 and for Interview, marks allotted were 25. There was a provision for 2 LPA No.73 of 2007 maximum of 5 marks for Sports and Extra Curricular Activities, which is as under:- “D. Sports and Extra Curricular Activities 5 a) International level 5 for winner b) National level 4 for winner c) State level 3 for winner d) District level 1 for winner E. N.C.C. 3 C Certificate 3 B Certificate 2 A Certificate 1 F. N.S.S. 2 One Camp 1 Two or more 2” 5. The matter was considered by learned Single Judge on 18.5.2005 on the basis of record produced. It was found that the appellant had been given one mark for the experience. She had produced the Experience Certificate for working for 1 year and 24 days, on which ground she was entitled to 2 marks instead of 1 mark which was given. It was further observed that Ramanjit Kaur who was impleaded as respondent No.9 in the writ petition, died after joining service. Direction was issued to consider the appellant. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.5.2005, it was noted that Subordinate Services Selection Board in pursuance of order dated 18.5.2005, recommended the name of the appellant for appointment. It was directed that the appellant 3 LPA No.73 of 2007 be given appointment from the date persons belonging to the Sports Category had been appointed without any pay. The appellant was entitled to salary by refixation without any arrears. In pursuance of the said order, the appellant was given appointment vide order dated 8.12.2006. The appellant filed C.M. No.19852 of 2006 on 27.11.2006 seeking compliance of order dated 24.5.2005. Vide order dated 8.12.2006, the application was disposed of, by stating that the writ petition already stood disposed of, though inadvertently, it was not so mentioned. Order dated 8.12.2006 is subject matter of L.P.A. No.73 of 2007. 6. The appellant filed contempt petition being C.O.C.P. No.1434 of 2005, making a grievance that she was not given appointment. Director, Ayurveda, Punjab filed affidavit annexing photocopy of appointment letter dated 8.12.2006. The appellant, however, argued that her appointment should relate back to the date when her juniors in the Sports Category were appointed and the pay should be fixed accordingly. She should also be paid salary and arrears after expiry of three weeks from 24.5.2005. 7. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.12.2006 directed that the appellant be treated to have been appointed from the date Dr. Vaneeta Sood, a candidate lower in the merit to the appellant, was appointed and she be paid salary w.e.f. 19.10.2006 when the Review Petition filed by the respondents was dismissed. Claim for arrears of pay from the date of expiry of 4 LPA No.73 of 2007 three weeks period after 24.5.2005 till 18.10.2006 was left open to be raised at appropriate forum. L.P.A. No.74 of 2007 is against the order dated 21.12.2006 passed in contempt petition. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of L.P.A. No.73 of 2007 submitted that the appellant should be held entitled to salary for the period from 23.2.2000 when appointments were first made to the posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers after the selection process and her seniority be reframed by giving her two more marks in the Sports Category. Maximum marks in the said category being five and she having been awarded only three, she was entitled to two more marks. The appellant should also be awarded damages. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman AIR 1991 SC 2010, Paras Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1993 SC 1212 and Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai and another AIR 2005 SC 2372 in support of the prayer for backwages on the ground that the appellant was willing to work but was not allowed to work. 9. The prayer in the appeal is opposed by pointing out that even though maximum marks as per the criteria are five, the split up of marks shows that 5 marks are only for participation at international level, 4 marks for national level and for State level participation, maximum marks are 3. It has been further pointed out that the appellant has been appointed as one Ramanjit Kaur died and she, therefore, was correctly given seniority. It has been 5 LPA No.73 of 2007 further submitted that prayer in the petition was only for appointment and issues sought to be raised in LPA were never argued before learned Single Judge. 10. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. The appellant was not selected originally. It was only during the course of hearing of the writ petition that it was found that one candidate had died, on account of which the appellant could be considered by giving her one more mark for the experience. In the order dated 24.5.2005, it was made clear that the appellant will not be entitled to any pay for the period prior to her appointment, though she will be entitled to refixation of salary without arrears from the persons belonging to Sports Category were given appointment. To that extent, the appellant has been already been given relief. The appellant never challenged order dated 24.5.2005 and filed L.P.A. on 4.12.2006 only against orders dated 8.12.2006, stating that order dated 24.5.2005 stood merged in the said order which plea cannot be accepted. The appellant is not entitled to two more marks in the Sports Category, as claimed and she is not, thus, entitled to reframing of seniority. She never participated at national or international level. The appellant is not entitled to salary for the period prior to her appointment. The judgments relied upon are distinguishable. 12. Coming now to L.P.A. No.74 of 2007, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in contempt proceedings relief for backwages and seniority should have been gone into. 6 LPA No.73 of 2007 Alternatively, denial thereof was not justified. He cited judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others (1996) 6 SCC 291, Jhareswar Prasad Paul & another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly & others JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 290 and Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and others JT 2004 (8) SC 163 to submit that in contempt jurisdiction, no further order could be passed. This contention can also not be accepted for the reasons already mentioned. Judgments relied upon are of no help to the appellant. The appellant himself approached the contempt Court to pass further orders and orders have been passed in her favour in the manner earlier indicated. Contempt petition was only confined to compliance of order of appointment. The same stood complied. Still, the appellant herself raised further questions. In any case, the appellant had no valid justification for claiming higher seniority or backwages. 13. For the above reasons, both the appeals are without any merit and the same are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- each. The costs may be paid to Punjab and Haryana High Court Legal Aid Committee. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 18, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 7