CWP No.1905 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.1905 of 2007 Date of decision: 10.09.08 Lakhvir Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner in the instant case has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to select and appoint her on the post of PTI Teacher as the posts are lying vacant in the respondent department. She has prayed that consequential benefits be granted to her from the date, the persons similarly situated were selected and appointed. It has been stated in the petition that an advertisement dated 29th March, 2001 was issued by respondent no.2 inviting applications for 175 male and 175 female posts of PTI Teachers in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100. The applications were to be submitted by 17th April, 2001. In the said advertisement it was mentioned that there was no reservation for handicapped category and in case a candidate belonging CWP No.1905 of 2007 2 to this category applied, his application would be considered in the General category. However later, on 30.3.2001, a separate advertisement inviting applications for 46 male and 47 female posts of PTI Teachers belonging to Handicapped category was issued. The petitioner applied for the post of PTI Teacher but she was not called for the interview on the ground that she had passed certificate course in physical education from Kurukshetra University and the same was not recognized. The petitioner along with other similarly placed candidates preferred CWP No.8930 of 2001 wherein a Division Bench of this court on 4th July, 2001 was pleased to direct that eligible candidates would be interviewed provisionally. This petition was ultimately allowed on February 08, 2006 directing that certificate course in Physical Education from Kurukshetra University shall be accepted and the candidates having passed the same would be considered eligible for the post of PTI Teacher. The petitioner claims that result of the selection was declared on 29th September, 2006 in which the respondents selected six candidates for the post of PTI Teacher in General (Female) category and the petitioner was placed in waiting list at No.2. The petitioner has annexed Annexure P-5 to show that she was at No.2 in the waiting-list of PTI Teacher General (Female) category. A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated as under:- “4. That even if the selection list of the candidates CWP No.1905 of 2007 3 belonging to the General female category is stretched by taking into account the aforementioned 06 posts, the cut off merit as per the stretched list for the General female category comes to be 47.19 and the petitioner does not fall in the extended zone of selection as the petitioner who belongs to General female category has secured 46.91 marks.” The respondents have also denied in their reply that the petitioner was at No.2 in the waiting list. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab has submitted that in fact, name of the petitioner appeared at No.6 in the waiting list and she could not have been appointed as the cut off merit for General (Female) category came to be 47.19 marks while the petitioner secured 46.91 marks in the said category. She has referred to the original record in this regard to show that the petitioner had secured 46.91 marks. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the petitioner being below the last candidate selected in the General (Female) category as she had secured 46.91 marks while the cut off in this category was 47.19 marks, could not have been granted appointment to the post in question. The writ petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE September 10, 2008 'rajpal'