IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.14150 of 2008 Date of Decision:17.10.2011 Kiran Malik .... Petitioner Versus B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manik Bakshi, Advocate for the respondent-University. Mr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The petitioner, who is number 2 in the merit list in pursuance to the selection to the post of Music/Dance Teacher in response to advertisement dated 18.4.2008, has challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 to the said post. The facts in short are that the respondent University advertised one post of Music/Dance Teacher for the Campus School of the University. Again, the same advertisement was published in which last date of submission of application was given as 30.4.2008. The petitioner being eligible submitted application for selection to the post of Music/Dance Teacher in the Campus School of respondent- University in pursuance to advertisement dated 7.4.2008 and 30.4.2008. With the application, the petitioner attached her C.W.P No.14150 of 2008 -2- biodata giving her performance in the educational qualifications and personal achievements in the field. The respondents in their advertisement demanded “Trained Graduate Teachers in Music/Dance” meaning thereby essential qualification was that the candidates should be graduate on the last date of submission of application. A Total of 12 candidates applied for the interview. Out of the said 12 candidates, 5 candidates participated in the writing and speaking test held on 2.6.2008. On the basis of the said test, both respondent No.4 and the petitioner were called for the interview to be held on 2.6.2008. Respondent No.4 did not possess the graduation degree either at the time of the submission of the application or on the date of interview. However, respondent No.4 was placed at No.1 and the petitioner was placed at No.2. There was only one post. Accordingly, respondent No.4 was appointed on the said post. Replies have been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 as well as respondent No.4. The issue of appointment in the facts and circumstances of the present was also pending consideration before the Executive counsel on account of the fact that respondent No.4 had acquired the Degree subsequently Mr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-University has placed on record Resolution No.6 of 25th Meeting of Executive Council held on 5.10.2011 pertaining to the case of respondent No.4. As per the said resolution, the appointment of respondent No.4 was held to be not valid as she was not eligible at the time of interview and it was also resolved to terminate the service C.W.P No.14150 of 2008 -3- of respondent No.4. However, her termination was made subject to the out come of the present writ petition. The following facts are admitted: a) The basic essential qualification was B.Ed degree i.e. Graduation. b) Respondent No.4 did not possess the B.A. Degree either on the date of submission of the application or on the date of interview and nor on the date of appointment. c) Respondent No.4 was not eligible. She did not possess requisite qualification even up-til the date of appointment. d) The executive council of the respondent-University vide Resolution No.6 of 25th Meeting held on 5.10.2011 pertaining to the case of respondent No.4 have decided the appointment of respondent No.4 to be not valid and also decided to terminate the service of respondent No.4. However, her termination was made subject to the out come of the present writ petition. Learned counsel for respondent No.4, however, submitted that respondent No.4 had not suppressed the facts and mislead the authority whiling seeking appointment. Hence, it was not fair to terminate the service of respondent No.4 after three years of service and relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mrs. Satwant Khera, Teachress, Government Girls High School, Sohna and others v. The State of Haryana and others 1991 (2) Recent Services Judgments 67 as well as the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab 2000(2) SCT 826. C.W.P No.14150 of 2008 -4- The facts in the case of Mrs. Satwant Khera, Teachress (Supra) are totally different. In that case, the petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc basis. There was mass strike of teachers in the State of Haryana w.e.f. February 12, 1973. Admittedly, the petitioners did not go on strike and continued to serve during the period of strike. The State Government took a decision in the years 1975 that those Teachers whose services were terminated after the strike of 1973 and who possessed the qualification of B.A. B.Ed with Sanskrit be re-appointed. Besides, the Haryana Government in the year 1976 also took a general policy decision to accommodate by re- appointing all such Teachers, who fulfilled the basic qualifications and did not participate in the strike of 1973. In that case, while appointing the petitioners, the Government took a conscious decision keeping in mind their devotion to duty and having resisted the call of strike. It was thus in these circumstances that they were granted benefit of re-appointment. In the case of Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) it was the conceded case of the parties that candidates had duly acquired the requisite qualification by the extended date qua category No.1 and with respect to category No.3, it was also conceded that candidates had given their test before cut of date and their results were not declared but their answers books were evaluated before the cut of date and marks were sent to the selection committee. Whereas, in the present case, selected candidate i.e. respondent No.4 did not possess the requisite qualification either on the date of submission of application or on the date of interview and C.W.P No.14150 of 2008 -5- even when the appointment letter was issued to her. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that as to when respondent No.4 finally passed her B.A. and acquired the qualification. No such certificate had been placed on record. For the reasons best known, the said information has been kept back from the Court. The fact that three years have passed will also not help as the petitioner challenged the selection of respondent No.4 immediately thereafter and without any delay. Respondent No.4, therefore, knew that her appointment is under challenge. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 further submitted that respondent No.4 belongs to schedule caste category. However, there was only one post. It was not a reserve post. Hence, the said argument too cannot be sustained. Moreover, the Executive Council too has held the appointment to be not valid as respondent No.4 was found not eligible not only on the date of the interview but also at the time of issuance of appointment letter. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and order appointing respondent No.4 as Music/Dance Teacher is hereby set aside. However, the respondent-University shall consider the name of the petitioner, who was at serial No.2 in the merit list, for the appointment of Music/Dance Teacher subject to her being eligible and any other relevant factor. 17.10.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE