IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.18069 of 2006 Date of Decision: April 8, 2008 Meenu Singla and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.KK Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.BS Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Padam Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.4. ... RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider marks obtained as internal assessment in the B.Ed. Examination while determining their merit for selection to the post of Math Mistress, Science Mistress and Punjabi Mistress. Petitioners No.1 and 2 had applied for the post of Math Mistress. Petitioner No.3 had applied for the post of Science Mistress and petitioner No.4 had applied for the post of Punjabi Mistress pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.6.2006 (Annexure P5), issued by respondent No.3. Their sole grievance is that while taking into account marks for the B.Ed. qualification, marks awarded to them for internal assessment were not taken into consideration. C.W.P.No.18069 of 2006 -2- Notice of motion was issued. Respondents No.1 and 2, 3 and 4 have filed their separate written statements. Respondent No.3 has categorically stated in para 2 of the written statement that in spite of accounting internal marks obtained by the petitioners in their B.Ed. Examination, they do not fall within the zone of consideration as the last selected candidate in general category (female) for the post of Math Mistress has obtained 146.83% and the last candidate selected in general category (female) for the post of Science Mistress had obtained 148.17% marks which is much more than the marks obtained by petitioners No.1 to 3. A detailed chart is given in para 2 of the preliminary submissions of the reply filed by respondent No.3. So far as petitioner No.4 is concerned, who had applied for the post of Punjabi Mistress, it is submitted in para 3 of the preliminary submissions by respondent No.3 that she too is not eligible for the post in question. As per the prescribed qualification for the post of Punjabi Mistress, a candidate should be B.Ed. with the subject of Punjabi teaching and Punjabi as an elective subject in graduation. Since petitioner No.4 is not having Punjabi elective subject in graduation, as such, she is not eligible for want of prescribed qualifications. In this regard, the answering respondent No.3 relied upon a clarification sought from the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Education vide their letter dated 21.7.2006, appended as Annexure R-1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Although, now there is a policy decision taken into consideration the marks earned by the candidates for internal assessment C.W.P.No.18069 of 2006 -3- during the course of their B.Ed. qualification, but as per averments made in para 2 of preliminary submissions of the reply filed by respondent No.3, it is evident that in spite of accounting for the marks obtained by petitioners No.1 to 3 in their internal assessment, none of them could obtain marks more than the last selected candidates in the general category (female) for the post of Math Mistress and Science Mistress as they do not qualify for the post. Similarly, petitioner No.4 lacks basic qualification as she does not possess Punjabi elective subject in graduation. Learned State counsel has also referred to a decision of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.18066 of 2006, (Narinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others), decided on 17.3.2007, in which similar controversy has arisen and the writ petition had to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Court as inspite of consideration of the marks obtained in the internal assessment, the petitioner could not qualify. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) JUDGE ( MEHTAB S. GILL ) April 8, 2008 JUDGE SRM