HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18063 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.09.2011 **** Vijay Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. BR Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in English in the Ex-servicemen (Male) category on 04.12.2006. His services have been terminated after a period of more than 3 years and 9 months on the plea that a candidate, namely, Malkiat Singh higher in merit was ignored. It is further averred that the said Malkiat Singh approached this Court in CWP No.20011 of 2006 wherein the present petitioner was also impleaded as a party respondent. It was noticed, in that writ petition, that the said Malkiat Singh was higher in merit and entitled to be appointed in preference to the petitioners. Resultantly, services of the petitioner have been terminated. CWP No.18063 of 2010.doc - 2 – (2). The petitioner does not dispute the fact that Malkiat Singh was higher in merit and had a superior right for appointment. He, however, relies upon two orders of this Court passed in CWP No.253 of 2010 (Rajinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) decided on 03.03.2010 (Annexure P6) and CWP No.2019 of 2010 (Ramandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.) decided on 12.05.2010 (Annexure P7). (3). In Rajinder Kumar’s case (supra), it was observed that:- “[15]. There is indeed no denial to the fact that as per the original merit-list displaced on the website or published in the Newspapers, the petitioner was amongst the selected candidates. The selection was carried out by an agency hired by the State Government. The marks secured by the petitioner are not at variance. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner misled or duped the authorities to secure appointment. It was on the basis of the marks secured by him that he was given appointment. It is stated that the petitioner was earlier also in Government service and he resigned from the said post so as to join as Hindi Master. It CWP No.18063 of 2010.doc - 3 – would, therefore, be too iniquitous to subject the petitioner to such an extreme hardship and/or snatch the very source of survival of his family and that too for no fault attributable to him. [16]. It may be true that some of the candidates were wrongly rejected by the respondents treating them ineligible for want of updated Backward Class certificates, who have finally succeeded before this Court. The direction issued by the High Court to treat those candidates as eligible, therefore, should not work to the disadvantage of the petitioners. The fact that hundreds of posts are lying vacant and the Govt. Schools, especially in rural areas are suffering a lot for want of adequate teachers, it would otherwise be in the interest of student-community to retain the petitioners in service. [17]. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed; the impugned Order-cum-Show Cause Notices dated 20.11.2009 are quashed and the respondents are hereby directed to allow the petitioners to continue against the available vacancies, however, without affecting the seniority of the candidates who have been held to be higher in merit.” CWP No.18063 of 2010.doc - 4 – (4). In Ramandeep Kaur’s case (supra), the candidate belonged to the Backward Class category and her claim was disposed of in the light of directions given in Rajinder Kumar’s case (supra) with a direction to allow her to continue in service against the vacant post. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and following the view taken in Rajinder Kumar’s case and Ramandeep Singh’s case (supra), the present writ petition is also disposed of with a direction to the respondents to verify as to whether or not any post of Lecturer in English (School cadre) in the reserved category of Ex-servicemen (male) is lying vacant. If such a vacancy is available and the petitioner is the next candidate in order of merit, the respondents are directed to adjust the petitioner against such vacancy without disturbing the candidate(s) higher in merit and without any arrears of pay for the break period though the service rendered by him previously shall be taken in account for the purpose of notional pay fixation. (6). However, if the candidate(s) higher in merit is/are still awaiting appointment, the petitioner shall have no claim to be appointed. (7). The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. CWP No.18063 of 2010.doc - 5 – (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 09.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge