IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 6419 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.4.2009. Charanjit Kaur --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The Department of Education advertised 2010 posts of ETT Teachers on consolidated pay of Rs. 5,000/- per month vide advertisement dated 24.1.2004. The minimum qualification prescribed in the said advertisement was 10+2 Examination with Punjabi in Matriculation and the candidate should have passed the professional course of two years of ETT. The advertisement also specifies that such of the candidates, who are not graduate at the time of submission of the application shall complete their graduation within 5 years from the date of appointment. The petitioner is B.A. B.Ed and claims to be eligible for the post in question. The petitioner claims to have applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement for selection/appointment. It is alleged that though 2010 posts were advertised but only 1050 candidates were available, who have been appointed. The Punjab State Education Class-III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978 were later on amended vide notification dated 24.3.2006. Vide the same amendment the management of 863 Govt. Primary Schools/Branch Schools along with 1822 contractual ETT teachers have been transferred to the CWP. No. 6419 of 2009 -2- Deptt. Of Rural Development & Panchayat. After the amendment advertisements dated 5.3.2006 and 26.5.2006 have been issued by the Deptt. Of Rural Development & Panchayat. Under this advertisement apart from the qualifications i.e. 10+2 and ETT even the candidates having qualification of B.A. B.Ed are also eligible to apply. The claim of the petitioner in the present case is that as against 2010 advertised posts only 1050 posts have been filled up and the rest of the posts are still lying vacant and the petitioner, who participated in the selection process has a right of appointment. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being CWP No. 4062 of 2006, which came to be disposed of on 17.4.2006 on the basis of an earlier judgement rendered in CWP No. 4974 of 2006 decided on17.4.2006. In the aforesaid judgement, following observations have been made:- “ In view of the statement made by learned counsel representing the respondents, we find no justification in keeping the instant writ petition pending. The same is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to finalize the statutory rules envisaged by the notification dated 3.3.2006 at the earliest. Learned counsel for the respondents, again having sought instructions, asserts that all objections will be considered and disposed of within four weeks from the expirty of the time depicted in the notification dated 13.4.2006 (whereby objections to the draft rules were invited). Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file objections, if he is so advised, within the time stipulated in the notification dated 13.4.2006 and if any objections are raised by the petitioner, conscious decision will be taken in respect thereto, by the competent authority, within four weeks, as already undertaken hereinabove. CWP. No. 6419 of 2009 -3- On the determination of the objections, Service Rules envisaged under the notification dated 3.3.2006 will be notified within a further period of one week. Since the respondents acknowledge that appointments made in furtherance to the advertisement dated 4.3.2006 are only provisional, we hereby direct the respondents to issue a fresh advertisement to fill up all the posts under reference in terms of the statutory rules framed. As the instant order has been dictated in the open Court, learned counsel for the respondents, again on seeking instructions, states that a fresh advertisement in terms of the aforesaid direction will be issued within one week thereafter and regular recruitment to the advertised posts will be finalised within a further period of two weeks, from the last date of receipt of application forms (expressed in the fresh advertisement). Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be furnished to the parties dasti on payment of usual charges.” In view of the aforesaid judgement the respondents have passed an order dated 22.11.2006 on the representation of the petitioner. It is stated that the 863 Govt. Primary Schools/Branch Schools along with 1822 contractual ETT teachers have been transferred to the Deptt. Of Rural Development & Panchayat. The petitioner is at liberty to apply as and when the Department of Rural Development & Panchayat invites applications for the posts in question. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner has no right to seek a direction for appointment against the vacancies which were advertised vide advertisement dated 24.1.2004. Otherwise also, it is settled CWP. No. 6419 of 2009 -4- proposition of law that if a person is on the select list, he has not right of appointment. The State-respondent after the aforesaid advertisement amended the rules and transferred the schools along with the posts to the Department of Rural Development & Panchayat and even the candidates having B.A. B.Ed qualification have already been made eligible under the amended rules. The petitioner is at liberty to apply as and when the available posts are advertised by the Department of Rural Development & Panchayat, however, no direction can be issued for appointment on the basis of the 2004 advertisement. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 29.4.2009 lucky