LPA No. 1331 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1331 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 13.10.2010 State of Punjab through its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and another. ......Appellants Vs Rachna Devi ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: - Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellants. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) Heard. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 7086 of 2008. By the aforesaid order this Court had directed that the respondent/writ petitioner who had been denied appointment in the post of Punjabi Mistress on the ground that she had not passed Punjabi as an elective subject should be appointed. The aforesaid direction was considered appropriate by the learned Single Judge in the following facts and circumstances. By an advertisement dated 29.08.2007 (Annexure P7) applications were invited for filling up different posts, including the LPA No. 1331 of 2010 (O&M) 2 posts of Punjabi Masters/Mistress which were available upto 31.03.2011 on a consolidated pay of Rs. 5400/-. The respondent/writ petitioner was a candidate for the post of Punjabi Mistress. The advertisement prescribed the following two essential conditions of eligibility for the said post:- “(i) Graduate from a recognized University with Punjabi as an elective subject in all the three years of Graduation. (ii) With teaching of Punjabi in B.Ed.” As the respondent/writ petitioner did not have Punjabi as an elective subject in her Graduation Course and the said subject was a compulsory/optional subject of the respondent/writ petitioner she was refused appointment inspite of being selected. Aggrieved the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted. The learned Single Judge took note of the decision of the State Government dated 01.02.2008 (Annexure P15) wherein, in compliance with certain orders passed by this Court, the Department of Education, Government of Punjab had decided to allow the candidates who had possessed Punjabi as a compulsory/optional subject to be appointed. In view of the aforesaid decision of the concerned department of the State Government the learned Single Judge thought it proper to hold the same to be applicable to the case of the respondent/writ petitioner and hence the directions in question were issued. Before us, Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that the decision of the State LPA No. 1331 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Government dated 01.02.2008 (Annexure P15) was in the context of an advertisement issued in the year 2006 for filling up regular posts of Punjabi Masters/Mistresses and the said decision would not apply to the present case wherein the advertisement was issued for filling up similar posts on contractual basis upto 31.03.2011. We have perused the decision of the State Government dated 01.02.2008 (Annexure P15) and have taken note of the contents thereof. The said decision of the State Government was prompted by certain orders passed by this Court holding that candidates who had Punjabi as a compulsory/optional subject would also be eligible for appointment in the post of Punjabi Masters/Mistresses notwithstanding the stipulation in the advertisement with regard to Punjabi as an elective subject. Merely because the posts covered by the State Government decision dated 01.02.2008 were regular posts and the posts involved in the present case are contractual in nature it will be difficult to hold that the decision dated 01.02.2008 should not be made applicable to the present case. In fact, if the candidates with Punjabi as a compulsory/optional subject are eligible to fill up the regular posts it is difficult to comprehend why similar candidates should be held to be ineligible to fill up the contractual posts available upto 31.03.2011. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, is rejected by refusing admission. LPA No. 1331 of 2010 (O&M) 4 C.M. No. 4040 of 2010 As we are not entertaining the Letters Patent Appeal, no order will be called for in the application for condonation of delay. C.M. No. 4041 of 2010 As we are not entertaining the Letters Patent Appeal, no order will be called for in the stay application. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) 13.10.2010 JUDGE Amodh