C.W.P. No. 12564 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12564 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: November 30, 2009 Poonam Bala .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant benefits to the petitioner in terms of judgment rendered on 30.09.2008 in CWP No. 4242 of 2007 titled Gyatri Jyoti Vs. State of Punjab and Others. The petitioner further claims appointment as Head Mistress under Backward Class (Female) category being higher in merit alongwith all consequential benefits. 2. It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Backward Class category as recognized by the Government of Punjab. Tehsildar, Pathankot has issued a certificate to that effect dated 19.06.1998. The petitioner being eligible, applied for the post of Head Mistress under Backward Class category. Learned counsel has highlighted C.W.P. No. 12564 of 2009 2 that in the advertisement, the following has been made explicit under para No. 5 of the general conditions:- “Candidates seeking reservation meant for the members of Scheduled Caste/Backward classes of Punjab State only shall have to produce Scheduled Caste certificate/Backward Class certificate as applicable, as prescribed by the State Government issued by the competent authority before the issue of appointment letter.” 3. The application of the petitioner was considered and was invited for scrutinizing of her original documents for which the petitioner appeared. On scrutinizing of documents, merit marks of the petitioner were shown at 66.770. Candidates upto merit marks of 61.986 were called for scrutiny of original documents under scrutiny phase-I. 4. During first scrutiny, all the posts under Backward Class category were not filled up. Under the circumstances, the department issued an advertisement on 09.11.2007 calling the eligible candidates who had been left out upto 61 marks under Backward Class category on 13.11.2007 at 10.00 A.M. The merit marks of the last selected candidate under Backward Class category have been shown at 62.197. The petitioner again appeared for scrutiny of her documents. Select list has been declared, however, the name of the petitioner does not find mention. The petitioner made representation. The respondents replied to the representations saying that the issue raised by the petitioner is under consideration. 5. It has been asserted that thereafter a number of representations have been made, however, with no result. The petitioner even at the time of scrutiny of documents submitted fresh Backward class certificate. The C.W.P. No. 12564 of 2009 3 reason given to the petitioner for not selecting her is that her Backward Class certificate is old and the second Backward Class certificate is of the later date as compared to the last date of receipt of applications. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the identical issue was raised before this Court in CWP No. 6426 of 2009 titled Smt. Sumit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and Others decided on 29.04.2009. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that the issue raised in this petition is covered by judgment rendered in Smt. Sumit Kaur's case (supra), wherein reliance has been placed on earlier judgment rendered in Gyatri Jyoti's case (supra). Relevant extract from Smt. Sumit Kaur's case (supra) reads as under:- “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the petitioner has been illegally denied consideration for selection and appointment as Lecturer in English in B.C category in violation of the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition, quash the impugned order dated 23.1.2007(Annexure P/12) and direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Lecturer in English, being higher in merit that respondents 3 to 5. The respondents shall displace the candidate(s) lowest in merit in Backward Class category. Respondents, shall however, be at liberty to accommodate such displaced candidate(s) against other vacancies, if available. The petitioner shall be entitled to notional service benefits with effect from the date the candidate lower in merit than her was appointed. C.W.P. No. 12564 of 2009 4 It is further clarified that if in the process of appointment of the petitioners in the aforesaid connected writ petitions, appointment of already appointed candidates is to be cancelled and such candidate(s) was/were not impleaded as respondents in the connected writ petitions, then their appointment(s) shall be cancelled after following due process of law. Needless to say that the respondents will be at liberty to accommodate such displaced candidates against any posts lying vacant. All the writ petitions stand allowed in the above terms.” In view of the above discussion the petitioner is also considered for selection/appointment against the post. This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. Mr. Chahal submits that the SLP has been filed against the judgement of Division Bench. It is, thus, observed that this order shall remain subject to outcome of the SLP.” 8. In view of the conceded position that the issue is covered by judgment rendered in CWP No. 4242 of 2007 titled Gyatri Jyoti Vs. State of Punjab and Others, this petition is allowed in the same terms. 30.11.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? C.W.P. No. 12564 of 2009 5