HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18941 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.07.2011 **** Harpreet Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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. Sukhdev Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is dependent of Ex-serviceman. She applied for the post of Social Studies Mistress in the reserved category of dependent of Ex-Serviceman (female) pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.10.2006. (2). There were 17 posts reserved in the above-stated category. The respondents initially called only Ex-serviceman (female) candidates for the interview/counseling on 15.11.2006 and the petitioner being a dependent was not allowed to participate. Unfortunately, the dependents were called almost after one year i.e. on 29.09.2007. Meanwhile, the petitioner, who was an unemployed young woman applied for the lower post of ETT and she was selected and given appointment on 28.12.2006. CWP No.18941 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). When the counseling for dependents of Ex-serviceman for the posts of Social Studies Mistress was held on 29.09.2007, the petitioner was again not considered on the plea that she was no longer a dependent on the Ex- Servicemen as she has got employment as ETT teacher. (4). Rule 4 of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-serviceman Rules, 1982 (in short, ‘the Rules’) was relied upon against the petitioner which says for the wife or dependent child of an Ex-serviceman shall be recruited against the reserved vacancy subject to the condition that such candidate possesses the prescribed qualification and “he or she is not already in service”. The object of Rule 4 of the Rules is to restrict the benefit of the reservation in favour of the wife or dependent child of an Ex-serviceman on first appointment. The petitioner wanted to avail the said benefit on the post of Social Studies Mistress and has been awaiting for interview since 15.11.1996. (5). The respondents not only started simultaneous selection process for more than one post, they also held the second counseling for the dependents of Ex-servicemen candidates for the post of Social Studies Mistress after an inordinate delay of almost one year. The petitioner being an unemployed youth could not be expected to sit idle and 2 CWP No.18941 of 2009.doc - 3 – allow the grass to grow under her feet anticipating the consideration of her candidature in a realm of uncertainty. (6). In these peculiar facts and circumstances, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for accepting the post of ETT as the respondents are responsible for the unexplained delay in filling up the posts of SS Mistresses. (7). It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that one post of Social Studies Mistress reserved for Ex-serviceman category (female) is still lying vacant. If that is so, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the petitioner shall be considered as a dependent of Ex-serviceman for the post of SS Mistress reserved for Ex-serviceman category (female) as she was dependent on her father on the date when her eligibility was to be considered i.e. on 15.11.2006. In case the petitioner is found suitable and is entitled for appointment as per her merit, she shall be given appointment as Social Studies Mistress without any benefit of the service rendered by her as ETT. The petitioner’s appointment as SS Mistress shall be taken to be the first appointment for the purpose of Rule 4(ii) of the Rules. (8). The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 22.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 3 CWP No.18941 of 2009.doc - 4 – 4