C.W.P No.3204 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.3204 of 2011 Date of decision: 22.2.2011. Subash Chander and others .............Petitioners v State of Punjab and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Dr. M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh,J By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to hold counselling (Phase-II) of the petitioners for the post of Teaching Fellows. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper book. Learned counsel argues that in view of the instruction dated 25.8.2010 (P.16) issued by respondent No.1, respondent Nos.2 & 3 are bound to conduct the counselling of the petitioners for the post of Teaching Fellows still no action is being taken by respondent Nos.2 & 3 hence the petitioners are entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ C.W.P No.3204 of 2011 #2# jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution. It is pleaded in the writ petition that petitioner No.1 has passed his B.Ed Examination from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in June 1995 (P.1) and completed his M.A (Hindi) from Punjabi University, Patiala in October 1999 (P.2), petitioner No.2- Kamaldeep Singh passed his B.Ed Examination from Punjabi University, Patiala on 17.8.2007 (P.5), petitioner No.3 passed his B.Ed on 17.1.1992 from Panjab University, Chandigarh (P.8) whereas petitioner No.4 passed his M.A History from the Panjab University on 24.8.2000 (P.12) and completed his B.Ed from Punjabi University, Patiala on 20.8.2001 (P.13). Department of School Education (Primary Wing) Government of Punjab vide Advertisement No.2/ September.2007 published on 5.9.2007 (P.15) advertised different posts of Teaching Fellows for a period of three and a half years on a consolidated pay of Rs.4550/- against JBT/ETT posts and last date of submission was fixed on or before 30.9.2007. It was further clarified that being a district cadre, candidates could apply only for one district of their choice and total number of posts were 9998 including 1291 posts earmarked for district Ludhiana. Considering themselves being fully qualified in response thereto, petitioners applied for the post of Teaching Fellows and submitted their applications to respondent No.3. Basic as well as professional qualifications for the post aforesaid are reproduced below: C.W.P No.3204 of 2011 #3# “(i) 10+2 any State recognized Education Board/recognized University. (ii) Elementary Teacher Training two year's course of Punjab State or from any other State or Union Territory declared equivalent and recognized by NCTE/Punjab Government.” Details of the registration numbers and marks obtained by the petitioners as per the Merit List of District Ludhiana are as follows: “Petitioner Registration Marks No. No. obtained No.1 2204 56.173 No.2 2709 56.528 No.3 7354 64.096 No.4 4725 64.122” It is necessary to mention here that all the petitioners belong to General Category. It is an admitted fact that the respondents called the candidates to attend first counselling on 15.3.2008 but as per the merit list depicted on the website the petitioners could not fall in the list as they were below the percentage of cut off marks. Then, the second counselling was held on 10.7.2009 but admittedly the petitioners did not participate in the said counselling for the reasons best known to them. As admitted in para 21 of the writ petition, the third counselling was announced on 14.5.2010 and the petitioners allegedly wanted to participate in the same but their candidatures were not considered on the ground that their names did not figure in the list as they did not attend the second counselling. Undisputedly, after the issuance of instructions dated C.W.P No.3204 of 2011 #4# 25.8.2010 (P.16), petitioners have not approached the respondents rather straightway rushed to this Court by way of the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus, which is not at all permissible. Even, as per the case of the petitioners themselves, the representations dated 22.6.2010 (P.17) and 21.6.2010 (P.18) were made by the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 respectively prior to the aforesaid instructions dated 25.8.2010 (P.16), which are of no consequences. Moreover, this Court cannot assume the jurisdiction of a Departmental Selection Committee. This Court is also not aware as to what is the status of selection process resulting from the advertisement dated 5.9.2005 (P.15) as on today and whether the official respondents are still continuing with the selection process or not. The proper way for the petitioners would have been to approach the respondents for their grievance instead of filing the instant writ petition. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case specially when the petitioners knowingly and deliberately did not participate in the second counselling held on 10.7.2009, they have no cause to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and as such the present writ petition is mis-conceived being pre mature. Dismissed. 22.2.2011. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge