In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.3611 of 1987 ..... Date of decision:21.10.2011 The State of Punjab and another .....Appellants v. Mrs. J.K. Pritam Singh .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. None for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. The defendants are in regular second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 28.7.1987 passed by the lower appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.2.1984 passed by the trial Court were set aside and the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent for declaration that action of the Government in not awarding her the grade of `700-1100 was illegal, void and further declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to Senior B.T. Mistress grade before her juniors was decreed. The claim of the plaintiff-respondent was that she was R.S.A. No.3611 of 1987 [2] appointed as J.S.T. Mistress on 18.4.1943 with joint seniority with the B.T. cadre upto 1954. The cadre of J.S.T. and B.T. was bifurcated from 1.4.1954. The plaintiff filed writ petition against bifurcation which was allowed and bifurcation was quashed and inter se seniority in joint cadre of J.S.T. and B.T. was allowed. She filed contempt petition in the year 1972 and she was allowed the grade of `400-800 from 1968 and has been placed in the grade of Head-Mistress from February 1960. She claimed that she deserves to be promoted as Head Mistress in Class II from 1965 or in the alternative w.e.f. 1.11.1966 in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court on the above mentioned writ petition. She further claims that she was entitled to selection grade of `250-300 for B.T. due to her seniority and was entitled to grade of `700-1100 from June 1973 the date when her juniors were given that grade. The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff and admitted the quashing of bifurcation of the cadres of J.S.T. and B.T. However, the defendants submitted that the plaintiff was given the grade of `250-300 from 5.2.1960, `300-600 from 1.11.1966 and `400-800 from 1.4.1968. It is submitted that in 1964, 77 posts of Headmistress in P.E.S.II were filled by the Punjab Public Service Commission from departmental and open candidates. The qualification for departmental candidates was B.A. B.T. and 10 years experience out which three years experience was as Headmistress. At that time, the plaintiff was not in the list of selected candidates. The trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed issues and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 22.2.1984. However, on appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.1987, decreed the suit of the plaintiff R.S.A. No.3611 of 1987 [3] and held that the plaintiff was entitled to be given P.E.S. Class II in the same manner in which her juniors were given and then P.E.S. Class I in the grade of `700-1100 w.e.f. 1.1.1973. Hence, this appeal by the defendants. I have heard Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the defendants-appellants. No one has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. I have also gone through the records of the case. Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent was senior to Smt. B.W. Singh and Smt. Hansa Rani who were given P.E.S. Class in the grade of `400-800 w.e.f. 1.11.1966 P.E.S. Class I in the grade of `700-1100 w.e.f. 1.1.1973. Smt. Vidya Wati in her cross-examination recorded on 25.11.1983 deposed that plaintiff-respondent passed her B.T. examination in July 1958. From the perusal of Ex.D.3 it is evident that the plaintiff was promoted as Headmistress w.e.f. 5.2.1960. A perusal of para 7 of the written statement filed by the defendants would show that P.E.S. Class II posts against which the plaintiff is staking her claim were advertised by the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala in the year 1964. Therefore, on that date, the plaintiff had teaching experience of more than 21 years including three years experience as Headmistress. Hence, she was eligible for her selection made by the Punjab Public Service Commission. But, her name was not sent by the defendants to Punjab Public Service Commission in spite of the fact that she was eligible to compete with others in 1964. This shows that she was discriminated. The names of her juniors were sent and admittedly they were selected for P.E.S. Class-II posts in 1965. In this manner, the genuine claim of the plaintiff was ignored without any R.S.A. No.3611 of 1987 [4] sufficient reasons. Subsequently, her claim for P.E.S. Class I was also ignored despite the fact that many juniors to her including Smt. B.W. Singh and Smt. Hansa Rani were given P.E.S. Class I in the grade of `700-1100 w.e.f. 1.1.1973. Since her earlier claim of P.E.S. Class II had been ignored arbitrarily, in consequence thereof her claim for P.E.S. Class I was also ignored. Therefore, I am of the considered view, that the plaintiff- respondent was discriminated against in not sending her name to the Punjab Public Service Commission for competing for the post of P.E.S.II and thus, she was entitled to be given the P.E.S. Class II from the date the benefit was granted to her juniors and then she be given P.E.S. Class I in the grade of `700-1100 w.e.f. 1.1.1973. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. October 21, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*