IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.17403 of 2007 Date of decision: 20.8.2008 Sham Lal and others -----Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Addl.A.G.Punjab Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 12.9.2007, Annexure P.3 declining to give approval to the appointment of the petitioners as teachers in the Doaba Arya Senior Secondary school, Nawanshahr, respondent No.6. 2. Case of the petitioners is that they were duly selected by the Selection Sub Committee in accordance with Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Schools employees (Security of CWP No.17403 of 2007 Service) Rules, 1981. In the year 2002, recommendation of the Selection Sub Committee was confirmed by the Managing Committee of the school. Letters of appointment were issued. However, under the rules, the appointment was required to be approved by the Director of Public Instructions respondent No.2. Accordingly, case of the petitioners was referred for grant of approval. The same remained pending without any decision till the passing of the impugned order. In the interregnum, several developments took place. CWP No.13979 of 2002 was filed by one Sangha Gurbax Kaur, challenging appointment of one of the candidates which was dismissed by this Court on 16.2.2004. It was held that no irregularities had been spelt out on the basis of which selections could be set aside. CWP No.16235 of 2006 was filed by Meenakshi Sidana in whose case approval was declined even though, the writ petition challenging her appointment was dismissed. CWP No.15599 of 2006 was filed by Smt.Anita which was disposed of on 2.7.2007 vide Annexure P.2. It was held that the issue of validity of selection could not be re-opened after judgment dated 16.2.2004 upholding the selection. Even otherwise, no irregularity was established. The advertisement had been duly issued and selection was held as per rules. Accordingly, denial of approval was quashed and a direction was issued to grant approval and to release grant-in-aid and also the salary due. Kanwar Deepak 2 CWP No.17403 of 2007 Kumar filed CWP No.5056 of 2007 which was allowed on 16.10.2007 in view of earlier judgment dated 2.7.2007. 3. Inspite of these developments, approval has again been declined in the case of the petitioners vide letter dated 12.9.2007, Annexure P.3, inter-alia, on the ground that in the case of the petitioners, no relief had been granted by the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being duly selected and appointed, the decision not to approve their appointment was arbitrary. Reliance has been placed on earlier judgments of this Court dated 2.7.2007, Annexure P.2 and dated 16.10.2007 (reproduced in para 8 of the petition). 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, the selection process was upheld without considering the infirmities therein and approval has been withheld by finding infirmities in the selection process mentioned in para 1 of the preliminary objections of the reply. 6. We have considered the submissions. 7. The matter is covered by earlier judgments of this Court referred to above. The objections are highly technical and have already been considered in the earlier judgment. In the case of the petitioner Sham Lal, it is mentioned that he was interviewed for the post of Science Master but was appointed JBT teacher. In the case of Rama Kumari, she was selected as S.S. Mistress but she was 3 CWP No.17403 of 2007 appointed JBT teacher. In the case of Ashwani Murgai, it is stated that he was appointed against the post of S.S.Master for which one post was advertised but appointment was of Ashwani Murgai and Udayan Dewesar. Suraj Giri was selected against the post of Gardner who had applied for the post of Chowkidar. 8. In the replication, the petitioners have pointed out that petitioner No.1 Sham Lal did apply for the post of JBT teacher as well as Science Master which was clear from applications Annexures P.4 to P.8 and interview call letters Annexures P.10 to P.12. In the case of Rama Kumari, it has been explained that her case was also at par with Sham Lal. As regards Ashwani Murgai, it is stated that his case was at par with Udayan Dewesar, whose writ petition has been earlier allowed being CWP No.2344 of 2006. Case of Suraj Giri is also stated to be at par with Sham Lal. Averments in the replication have not been disputed. The replication was filed on 25.3.2008 which was taken on record on 27.3.2008. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the respondents on 15.7.2008 and 22.7.2008. Thus, in view of decisions already taken in earlier round of litigation between the parties, denial of approval of appointment of the petitioners cannot be justified. 9. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the impugned order Annexure P.3 and direct respondent No.2 to pass a 4 CWP No.17403 of 2007 fresh order in accordance with law within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 20, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 5