IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12906 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 24.08.2009 Jaswinder Kaur .... PETITIONER Versus The State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the orders dated 24.5.2009 (Annexure P-15) and 3.6.2009 (Annexure P-21). By these orders, two separate representations of the petitioner, one against termination of her services on the ground that she was illegally got appointed as ETT and the other for her reinstatement in service, have been rejected, after providing an opportunity of hearing to her. In the present case, on 4.3.2006, vide advertisement issued by the Director, Rural Development & Panchayats, Punjab, applications were invited for appointment of Teachers in Primary Schools in rural areas. The petitioner, who was B.Sc., B.Ed pass, applied for the post. According to the Punjab Panchayati Raj Primary Teachers Recruitment and Service CWP No. 12906 of 2009 -2- Condition Rules, 2006, appointments on the posts of the Teachers were to be made on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in Matric, +2 and E.T.T examination. In case of non-availability of eligible E.T.T. candidates, the candidates having B.A/B.Sc., B.Com and B.Ed qualification were to be considered. In her application, the petitioner mentioned that in her B.Ed examination, she has secured 771 out of 1200 marks, whereas in its original document, she is shown to have secured 492 out of 800 marks. It is the case of the petitioner that she has also included the internal marks secured by her and the external marks obtained by her were 492 out of 800 marks. It is admitted position that as per the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, from where the petitioner passed her B.Ed examination, Degree of B.Ed was awarded to the students on the basis of their external assessment only. On the basis of the aforesaid wrong facts, mentioned in the application of the petitioner, she was declared selected and was appointed as E.T.T on 10.8.2006. Subsequently, on a representation made by the Employees Union, the Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh, ordered for holding of enquiry and in the said enquiry, it revealed that the petitioner was illegally got selected as ETT on the basis of wrong marks mentioned in her application. Thereupon, her appointment was called and her services were terminated vide order dated 5.11.2008. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing CWP No. CWP No. 12906 of 2009 -3- 20614 of 2008, while taking the plea that her appointment was cancelled and her services were terminated without providing an opportunity of hearing to her in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. On 20.1.2009, the said writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of and the order of termination of the services of the petitioner was set aside, on the ground that it was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and a direction was issued to respondent No.4 to pass the order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the said order, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after receiving her reply and providing an opportunity of hearing to her, respondent No.4 passed the order dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P-15), whereby services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated on the ground that she was wrongly selected on the basis of mis-statement of facts made by her in her application form. In the order, it was mentioned that if the marks of the petitioner in B.Ed Degree is taken as 492 out of 800 marks, then her merit comes to 121.50%, whereas the merit of the last selected candidate in the OBC category was 122.25%. After passing of the said order, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 25.5.2009 stating that she has secured more percentage of marks, as compared to one Smt. Kulwant Kaur, therefore, matter be enquired afresh and services of the petitioner be re-instated. The said representation has also been considered and rejected vide order dated 3.6.2009 (Annexure P-21). CWP No. 12906 of 2009 -4- I have heard counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that result of ETT in pursuance of the advertisement dated 4.3.2006 was declared in two parts. The first list of eligible ETT candidates was issued on 7.7.2006, in which result of 351 candidates was declared, out of which 21 candidates belonged to OBC category. The second list of eligible B.A/B.Ed candidates was issued on 7.8.2006. In the said list, result of 250 candidates was declared, out of which 56 candidates belonged to OBC category. The petitioner was wrongly selected in the said list. The merit of the last successful candidate was 122.25% marks. If the marks of the petitioner in B.Ed Degree are taken as 492 out of 800 marks, then her merit comes to 121.50%. Therefore, it was found that the petitioner was wrongly got selected on the basis of the wrong information supplied by her in her application form, regarding the marks obtained by her in B.Ed examination. This factual position has not been controverted. However, it has been explained that since in the Detailed Marks Card, the internal marks were also mentioned, therefore, under the bonafide mistake, the petitioner had mentioned those marks. But the fact remains that only the external marks of the petitioner in B.Ed are to be taken into consideration and as per those marks, she could not have been selected in the second list. In her reply as well as personal hearing before the authorities, the petitioner could not controvert this factual position. In view of this, I do not find any illegality in the order, whereby appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. CWP No. 12906 of 2009 -5- Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that one Kulwant Kaur, who had applied in response to the earlier advertisement dated 4.3.2006, but could not be selected, again applied against the subsequent advertisement dated 28.11.2006 and was selected, though the total percentage of her marks as per the calculation according to the criteria comes to less than the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner should be given the benefit of corrigendum issued on 28.11.2006, wherein it was mentioned that the candidates who had earlier applied need not to apply again. The petitioner cannot be given the said benefit, as she did not apply against the subsequent advertisement. She also cannot be given the benefit of corrigendum. She did not apply against the subsequent advertisement. Therefore, case of the petitioner cannot be compared with Kulwant Kaur, who was selected against the subsequent advertisement on the basis of her merit position. Thus, I do not find any merit in this petition. Dismissed. August 24, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE