IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7209 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: August 18, 2009 Rajesh Kumar .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. J.P. Bhatt, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two petitions namely CWP No. 7209 of 2008 titled Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others and CWP No. 12578 of 2008 titled Amandeep Saini and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others. For facts, reference is being made to the paper book of CWP No. 7209 of 2008 titled Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner against posts of JBT/ETT (Teachers) in Sportsmen quota as per merit position in the cut off merit list prepared by the respondents. Further prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari striking down the condition inserted in the advertisement to the effect that only sportsmen having grading 'A' and 'B' sports certificates shall be considered against C.W.P. No. 7209 of 2008 -2- vacancies reserved for sportsmen category. The facts of the case need not be given in so much as learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions from Gurdarshan Singh, Superintendent, DPI, Elementary Education, states that by inadvertence, in the advertisement in para no. 5 that relates to sports quota, the following has been given:- “The sports certificate duly graded by Director of Sports, Punjab, shall be a pre-requisite in the case of candidate who applies under the sports quota category. Only A grade and B grade certificate holders will be considered.” Learned counsel states that the rules require consideration of A Grade, B Grade and C Grade certificate holders. Since C grade was not mentioned in the advertisement, it would be wholly improper to appoint persons from sports category. No appointments have been made. The posts to be filled up from within sports quota would be re-advertised after giving an advertisement/public notice in accordance with Rules/Circular. Learned counsel has also pointed out that CWP No. 6801 of 2008 has been filed in relation to recruitment of Teaching Fellows. A Division Bench of this Court has issued an order of stay in the following terms:- “In the meantime, we modify the interim order dated 28.05.2008, passed by this Court with a direction that the respondents may appoint 8865 ETT Teachers who have been selected as teaching fellows forthwith. Remaining posts of 1133 ETT Teachers shall not be filled up without prior approval of this Court. C.W.P. No. 7209 of 2008 -3- As far as the selection of 4000 Secondary Education Providers is concerned, the candidates have already been selected and these candidates may also be appointed by the respondents. It is made clear that all the appointments, which have been ordered vide this order, shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. A stipulation to this effect be incorporated in the appointment letters which are to be issued to the selected candidates.” Learned counsel states that issue in that writ petition (CWP No. 6801 of 2008) is not related to sports persons, however, the permission of the Court will have to be taken and application in that regard will have to be filed. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that posts falling to the share of sportsmen quota are not being filled and the posts shall be re-advertised after making relevant amends, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cause of action does not survive. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. 18.08.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?