CWP No. 20362 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.20362 of 2006 Date of decision: 25.8.2008 Swaranjit Kaur ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate, for Mr. Baljit Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the selection of respondents No.5 & 6 for the post of B.Ed. teachers on the ground that these respondents are residents of Block Bhawanigarh. They have averred that recruitment of B. Ed teachers is block wise and respondents No.5 & 6 were ineligible for appointment. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 wherein it has been averred that the procedure adopted for appointment of teachers was valid as given in the Punjab Panchayati Raj Primary Teachers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Draft Rules, 2006. Reference has been made to Rule 11, Sub Rule (3) reads as under:- CWP No. 20362 of 2006 2 “The merit will be prepared by adding the percentage of marks obtained in 10+2 examinations or its equivalent and E.T.T. In case of non-availability of eligible E.T.T. candidates, the candidates having B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. and B.Ed qualification will be considered. It is further clarified in example given in Rule 11 sub rule 3 which reads as under:- Example:- A candidate having 62% in 10+2 examination and 72% in E.T.T. will have 62+72=134 scores. No other marks shall be given for any other qualification or activities. In case of equal marks older in age shall be placed higher in merit. To be eligible a candidate must have a minimum score of 100, as per the above criteria. In the same way separate merit shall be prepared for B.A./B.S.c./B.Com. and B.Ed. A joint merit applying the same criteria will be prepared for the purpose of seniority.” On the basis of aforementioned rule, it has been contended that appointments were made as per merit and priority of village in which the school is situated. Learned counsel has further argued that there was no stipulation that a candidate would be appointed in his own village, rather it was to be given priority only if two candidates had equal marks. Learned counsel for the respondents states that petitioner had secured 117.54 marks whereas the lowest merit in the category of CWP No. 20362 of 2006 3 the petitioner had secured 139.42 marks and hence the petitioner has rightly been ignored from appointment. In view of the fact that the petitioner has secured lesser marks than the last appointed candidate, hence there is no ground to give appointment to the petitioner and to quash appointments of respondents No.5 & 6. Dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 25, 2008 'rajpal'