CWP NO.20995 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 2.3.2009 Paramjit Singh ..Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Surmukh Singh, Advocate for petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) In view of the controversy involved in this petition and with the consent of learned counsel, this petition is disposed of today at motion stage. The petitioner acquired the qualifications of B.A. in the year 1996 and M.A. in the year 1999 from the Punjabi University, Patiala. Thereafter, the petitioner passed B.Ed. from Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi in December, 2003 and result was declared on 26.3.2004. However, formal grading card was issued on 11.5.2004. The petitioner is a handicapped person with 60% permanent disability. A CWP NO.20995 OF 2008 2 certificate regarding permanent disability dated 10.10.2005 (Annexure P-5) has been issued by the Civil Surgeon, Bathinda. Pursuant to the notice inviting applications for the post of Teaching Fellows by the Department of Education, Punjab on consolidated salary for the period of three years, the petitioner applied for the post of ETT teachers under the Handicapped Male Category from District Bathinda. There was 3% reservation for Handicapped candidates. Under the government instructions, there is 50% reservation for Males and 50% for females under the Handicapped category. Accordingly, seven seats each were meant for females and males. The petitioner was found to be eligible. Out of 9998 posts in the State of Punjab, 450 posts were earmarked for District Bathinda. The merit of the petitioner has come to 53.624 as determined by the respondents. However, according to the petitioner, his merit comes to 54.624. The petitioner submitted objections against the allegedly wrong calculation of the merit. The petitioner has been denied the appointment on the ground that the date of declaration of result of B.Ed. is 11.5.2004 whereas the petitioner claims the date of declaration of result of B.Ed is 26.3.2004. The merit of the petitioner was determined by taking the date of declaration of B.Ed result on 11.5.2004. Under the Government policy/rules, one mark is awarded for every one month after acquiring B.Ed qualification. The eligibility of the petitioner is not in dispute. The respondents no.1 to 3 filed reply. In the reply filed, it is stated that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Selection Committee as there was difference of dates of issue of degree of B.Ed and detailed marks CWP NO.20995 OF 2008 3 certificate i.e. DMC. The degree was issued by the concerned university on dated 26.3.2004 whereas detailed marks certificate DMC was issued by the same University on 11.5.2004 and as such the Committee has considered that the degree of the petitioner is dubious. The petitioner has placed on record a certificate dated 28.3.2008 (Annexure P-7) issued by the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi wherein it is clarified that the petitioner has successfully completed the programme during December, 2003 Term end Examination. The result of the examination was declared on 26.3.2004 and the date mentioned as 11.5.2004 on grade card issued to him is the date of printing of the grade card. In view of the certificate (Annexure P-7), the position is clarified and the apprehension expressed in the reply seems to be not valid. However, the respondents are at liberty to make any verification in this regard from the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment treating the declaration of his result of B.Ed as on 26.3.2004, after making verification from the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi with respect to the declaration of the result of B.Ed of the petitioner and the authenticity of Certificate (Annexure P-7) etc. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months and consequential order be passed. If the claim of the petitioner is found to be correct, the petitioner shall be appointed within a period of one month thereafter. However, he shall be entitled to the benefit of the appointment on the basis of the merit CWP NO.20995 OF 2008 4 in the process of selection. The petitioner shall not be entitled to monetary benefits for the interregnum when he remained out of work, though his salary shall be fixed by giving him the notional benefits of increments, revision of pay etc. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 2.3.2009 MFK