IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13202 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 21, 2009 Reena Garg .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Notice dated 16.5.2008, placed on record as Annexure P-9. In brief, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, being eligible and qualified to be appointed as Punjabi Mistress, applied in response to two advertisements dated 10.7.2006 and 2.10.2006. The petitioner was selected in both the selections. Resultantly, appointment CWP No.13202 of 2008 [2] letter, Annexure P-5 dated 7.12.2006 was issued to the petitioner in response to advertisement dated 10.7.2006. Appointment letter, Annexure P-6 was issued on 9.12.2006 in the selection that related to advertisement dated 2.10.2006. The petitioner was given a choice to join under one of the letters of appointment. The petitioner joined as a consequence of appointment letter, Annexure P-6 dated 9.12.2006, on 27.12.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the merit list published in consequence of selection made under advertisement dated 2.10.2006, the following Note was given:- “NOTE: 1. If any candidate having applied for any post in the ongoing recruitment process feels that despite his/her being eligible and having a higher percentage merit than the last candidate in the list pertaining to his/her category, he/she may, within three days of publication of the respective merit list, apply by sending an E-Mail at recruitment @cdac.mohali.stp in for reverification of documents free of cost by indicating online, registration number, post applied for any category. Reply will be sent by E-Mail to the applicant within 72 hours, and if necessary correction will be made before dispatch of appointment letters.” It has been pointed out that any candidate having an objection was required to approach the Selecting Agency within three days of publication of the respective merit list. The Agency was required to respond within 72 hours thereof, if necessary correction was required to be made and in any case before dispatch of appointment letter. It is the specific case of the petitioner CWP No.13202 of 2008 [3] that no such objection was received by the Agency within three days of publication of the merit list. The petitioner did not receive any intimation in regard to any claim of any other candidate indicating that the petitioner had a lower merit. The reply filed in response to the averments made in the petition is totally silent on the issue. The facts as asserted on behalf of the petitioner are admitted and therefore, there is no dispute in regard to the claim of the petitioner that she was appointed under appointment letter, Annexure P-6 dated 9.10.2006 and no objection was filed till the time stipulated in the Note given under the merit list. It seems that vide Annexure P-8 dated 31.3.2008, Office of District Education Officer, Bathinda, asked the petitioner to come present with original educational certificates. The petitioner produced the original certificates. The petitioner was not conveyed anything at that point in time. Be that as it may, impugned order Annexure P-9 was issued on 16.5.2008 thereby indicating that the petitioner was selected at Serial No.125 having secured 69.44 merit marks. Harjit Kaur had been selected vide letter dated 11.11.2007 having 71.66 merit CWP No.13202 of 2008 [4] marks. Since Harjit Kaur was higher in merit marks, the petitioner being the last candidate selected, was required to be dislodged. In this view of the matter, there was a proposal to terminate the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been selected in two selection processes under two different advertisements. The petitioner was given the choice of applying under one. The petitioner made her choice. It has been contended that a person who files objection, was required to do so within the time stipulated in the Note given with the merit list. This however was not done. Some decision seems to have been taken in November 2007 i.e. after approximately 11 months of the selection of the petitioner. As per the Note published with the merit list, the same was required to be taken within 72 hours on receipt of objection and in any case before the dispatch of appointment letter. Learned counsel states that no action having been taken within the time stipulated, a right has been vested in the petitioner to continue, particularly in view of backdrop of the facts and circumstances narrated above. Learned counsel for the CWP No.13202 of 2008 [5] respondents, in relation to the facts given out above, has not been able to justify passing of the impugned order, in so much as, there is no specific averment in the written statement as to the period of time within which objection had been filed. All that has been said is that Harjit Kaur was higher in merit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents were required to consider the objection within the period of time stipulated under the Note extracted above. This having not been done, a right is vested with the petitioner to continue on the post, particularly in the facts and circumstances that the petitioner was selected and was offered appointment vide two appointment letters, Annexure P-5 and P-6. The letter of appointment, under the Note extracted above was required to be issued before issue of letter of appointment. The very fact that letter of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner would legitimately give an expectation to the petitioner that no objection had been filed regarding merit of the petitioner; or `if any objection’ had been filed, CWP No.13202 of 2008 [6] it had been over-ruled before issuing letter of appointment. If these facts had been conveyed to the petitioner within time stipulated in the Note, the petitioner would have joined under the other selection under appointment letter, Annexure P-5. The respondents not having taken action in time has caused prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. There is a need to bring stability and permanence in administrative decisions. It is to achieve this purpose that the notice provides a time schedule for filing objection and decision thereon. An employee, after selection, is not expected to be kept under suspense as to his right to continue in job, particularly when selection and appointment has been made by the State. There has to be a terminus to fluidity of situation. The petitioner has already served the respondents for considerable period and therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case, equity also demands that the petitioner having been selected under due process is not dislodged. It would be wholly unreasonable and arbitrary to dislodge the petitioner at this juncture after having served the respondents since December 2006. CWP No.13202 of 2008 [7] The petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently, Order Annexure P-9 is quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) October 21, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?