C.W.P. No.2711 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2711 of 2009 Date of Decision.13.05.2010 Labh Singh son of Sh. Gurcharan Singh and another ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab through Secretary Department of School Education, Punjab Civil Secretariat at Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Surender Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioners seek for a direction by mandamus to appoint them as Computer Teachers/Substitute Teachers as they fulfill all eligibility and academic qualifications for appointment with the 2nd respondent. Initially, the petitioners had been appointed as Substitute Teachers on certain conditions on11.07.2006 but all Substitute Teachers were discharged from service on 23.12.2006. It appears that all persons belonging to the same class of Substitute Teachers made a joint representation to the Government that they had obtained experience for a period of time and a decision should be taken to absorb them to regular posts as Computer Teachers. The C.W.P. No.2711 of 2009 -2- Government had also acceded to their demand and by a meeting of the Cabinet held on 27.07.2008, it was reported to have been decided that all the Substitute Computer Teachers could be offered contractual appointment for one year subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions:- “i) They were appointed against vacant posts; ii) Their services should have been terminated on 23.12.2006 after serving for 89 days consecutively; iii) They should be required to acquire the prescribed educational qualification as approved by the BOG PICTES for future recruitment of computer faculty within one year." There were also other conditions relating to the salary that would be paid and that they would form a distinct cadre from the existing cadre of Computer Teachers. The Cabinet decision and the qualifications were set out through an advertisement issued by the respondents in the English Daily “The Tribune” on 28.03.2008 and the advertisement also invited applications from person who fulfilled all the above conditions to appear at the Head Office of PICTES at a given address within 15 days from the date of publication of the notice. The petitioners admittedly possessed the qualifications, which had been set forth in the advertisement dated 28.03.2008. However, they were not considered for selection and therefore, the writ petition. 2. The statement in defence by the State as justification for the non-selection was that even apart from the advertisement referred to by the petitioners, there was yet another advertisement, C.W.P. No.2711 of 2009 -3- which had been issued through website and which contained also a prescription relating to age that person must be between 18 and 35 years as on 21.04.2008 and as per the stipulation contained in the other advertisement through internet, the petitioners had been over- aged and therefore, they were not entitled to consideration. When the petitioners, therefore, pleaded that there were other persons who had also obtained a relaxation relating to age, the contention in defence was that the relaxation would be applicable only to persons, who had crossed the maximum age of 35 years on 21.04.2008 and as far as the petitioners were concerned, they were over-aged on the first date of appointment on 11.07.2006. It was on such a basis that the petitioners' candidature for consideration was rejected. 3. In my view, the grounds for refusal of the petitioners for consideration are fallacious on both counts: one, the advertisement which was authorized to be issued is in the eye of law an offer for appointment subject to the conditions prescribed there and the persons such as the petitioners fulfilled those conditions and they were entitled to be considered for appointment to such post. It could not be denied on a ground which was not stipulated in that advertisement. Two, the reference to yet another advertisement filed along with written statement and produced as Annexure R-2 containing stipulation as to age was not reported to have been published in any newspaper but put on the website. If there was any additional stipulation contained in yet another advertisement, unless a corrigendum had also been issued to the advertisement already issued on 28.03.2008, it cannot be taken that an advertisement posted on the website would supplant the advertisement issued in C.W.P. No.2711 of 2009 -4- the newspaper. Even on an additional ground taken namely that the petitioners had been over-aged on the first date of appointment on 11.07.2006 and therefore, the power of relaxation could not be exercised is not tenable, for if the power to relax the age existed and that power does not state that it would be relaxed only in case of persons, who had served the initial period of 89 days within the age limit prescribed subsequently, to restrict the relaxation only to persons who became over-aged only at the time when the advertisement was issued subsequently amounting to bringing a new criterion that was not spelt out in the power of relaxation. Any such decision to exclude the petitioners would amount to discrimination without any basis and hence not tenable. 4. The petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointment in the manner stipulated, if they are not otherwise disqualified. There shall, therefore, be a mandamus to the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment in the light of the advertisement which had been issued in Annexure P-6. The decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks and they shall be treated as having been appointed on the day when they were entitled to be considered along with others for the purpose of seniority and other service benefits. They shall not, however, draw any salary for the period when they were not appointed. 5. The writ petitions are allowed on the above terms. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 13, 2010 Pankaj*