IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17924 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 23.07.2009 Narinder Kaur .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 17923 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 23.07.2009 Manpreet Kaur .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 to 6 (in CWP No. 17923 of 2007) and for respondents No. 5 to 7 (in CWP No. 17924 of 2007). * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 17923 and CWP No. 17924 of 2007 -2- 17924 of 2007. In both these petitions, the selection of Kiranjit Kaur, Satinderjit Kaur and Sukhwinder Singh, who are respondents No.5 to 7 in CWP No. 17924 of 2007 and respondents No.4 to 6 in CWP No. 17923 of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `the private respondents'), as Elementary Training Teachers in the primary schools in rural areas, made by the Zila Parishad, Faridkot, has been challenged. It is the case of the petitioner in both the petitions that they got higher merit than the private respondents. In spite of that, they were ignored and private respondents were given appointment. It is alleged that as per merit, petitioner Manpreet Kaur (in CWP No. 17923 of 2007) secured 126.48 marks and petitioner Narinder Kaur (in CWP No. 17924 of 2007) secured 123.00 marks, whereas private respondents secured 115.66, 116.52 and 122.58 marks, respectively. Therefore, selection of the private respondents, who are lower in merit than the petitioners, was illegal, unlawful and arbitrary. In the separate written statement filed on behalf of the private respondents, it has been stated that they had applied for appointment as Elementary Training Teachers in pursuance of the advertisement dated 4.3.2006 in the category of Ex-Servicemen (General). Concededly, the petitioners did not apply against the said advertisement. In the selection made against the said advertisement, the private respondents were kept in waiting list. Subsequently, fresh advertisement dated 25.11.2006 was issued for appointment of teachers in Primary Schools in rural areas, in which it CWP No. 17924 of 2007 -3- was also mentioned that the posts which were left vacant in the previous recruitment will also be added to the number of posts to be filled up. Thereafter, a corrigendum dated 6.12.2006 was issued, wherein it was made clear that where the waiting list was prepared in the previous recruitment process, the same shall be taken to its logical conclusion independently and such waiting list shall not be included in the instant recruitment process. In the written statement, it has been specifically stated that the private respondents, who were in the waiting list of the previous selection, were given appointment against the unfilled posts of previous recruitment in accordance with the aforesaid corrigendum. Neither they applied in pursuance of the fresh advertisement nor they were considered in that selection. It has been further stated that as far as the petitioners are concerned, they participated and remained unsuccessful, because more meritorious persons than the petitioners were selected. As far as the private respondents are concerned, they did not participate in the fresh selection process and they were appointed against the unfilled posts in the previous recruitment, on the basis of their merit position in the waiting list. Therefore, it has been stated that the averment made in both the petitions that the petitioners are more meritorious and secured more marks than the private respondents is incorrect. During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioners could not controvert the aforesaid factual position and he could not point out any illegality or irregularity in appointing the private respondents against the CWP No. 17924 of 2007 -4- unfilled posts on the basis of waiting list in the previous selection. In view of the aforesaid undisputed factual position, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the selection of the private respondents on the ground that they are less meritorious than the petitioners. The petitioners did not apply against the previous advertisement, in pursuance of which the private respondents were selected and kept in waiting list. Therefore, the petitioners did not compete with the private respondents, who were earlier selected being waiting list candidates of the previous selection. No merit. Dismissed. July 23, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE