Civil Writ Petition No.6141 of 2000 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6141 of 2000 Date of decision: September 06, 2010. Geeta Bala ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 21.6.1999 Annexure P-13 whereby claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of JBT Teacher has been rejected. Respondent-State of Punjab invited applications for appointment of 7000 JBT Teachers in its Education Department. The advertisement was published on 8.1.1996 (Annexure P-8). In pursuance thereto, petitioner applied. She was called for interview on 21.8.1996. According to the petitioner, as per the criteria spelt out in the advertisement, her marks calculated ought to have been 50.04 whereas the Department has assessed the same as 45.54. Counsel questioned the assessment and award Civil Writ Petition No.6141 of 2000 -: 2 :- of marks by the Interview Panel where they have denied 5 marks to the petitioner to which she was entitled towards experience for the services rendered by her in Maharishi Dayanand High School, Sirhind Mandi, Fatehgarh Sahib. Petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition viz CWP No.5938 of 1999. The said writ petition was disposed of by observing as under:- “In the premise of aforesaid, we dispose of the writ petition by directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to examine the claim of the petitioner for appointment as JBT Teacher. While doing so, the respondents shall also keep in view the fact that about 1500 candidates selected for appointment as JBT Teachers have also been selected for appointment on the posts of Social Studies Master and in all probability they must have vacated the posts of JBT Teachers or may not have joined on the posts offered to them by the competent authority. Respondents No.2 and 3 are further directed to take appropriate decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner within one month of the submission of a certified copy of this order.” In consonance with the orders passed by this Court, Director Public Instructions (Primary), Punjab has passed the impugned order, Annexure P-13, in which it was specifically stated that the marks obtained by the petitioner were 45.54 and the last female candidate in the general category got 54.58 marks and, thus, the petitioner was not entitled to selection. This Court on August 13, 2010 passed the following order:- “Counsel for the State is directed to file an affidavit of the concerned official to state that in the selection under challenge Civil Writ Petition No.6141 of 2000 -: 3 :- how many marks were obtained by the last candidate selected in General Category.” Counsel for the State has today placed on record affidavit of Dr. S.S. Randhawa, Director Public Instructions (Elementary Education), Punjab, Chandigarh. In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the affidavit, it has been averred as under:- “3. That in this regard, it is humbly submitted hat in response to the advertisement dated 8.1.1996 candidates were selected from amongst the JBT/ETT candidates. In continuation of the process of recruitment, selection of 6500 candidates were declared in which the B.Ed candidates were selected against the post of JBT/ETT and simultaneously were selected against the post of Master/Mistresses were shown * marked. As per the result declared in female general category the number of * marked candidates as per record is 249. The merit of the last selected candidate in general female category is 54.58 and the merit of the petitioner in this category is 45.54. Even if all the * marked candidates may have joined as master/mistresses, the petitioner still does not come in selection zone as per her merit. 4. That it is also brought to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that there have been vacant posts against the recruitment held against the advertisement dated 8.1.1996 but subsequently there have been further recruitments against the requisite vacant posts as per advertisement shown below:- Sr. No. Date of advertisement No. of advertised posts 1. 15.4.1997 700 2. 2.4.2000 7230 3. 4.12.2001 3311 4. 5.9.2007 9998 5. That as per the position shown above, it is humbly submitted that even if the posts remained vacant against the selection as per advertisement dated 8.1.1996, the petitioner is not liable to be given a vacant post because several recruitments have been made subsequently. In view of the position explained above, it Civil Writ Petition No.6141 of 2000 -: 4 :- is crystal clear that even if now the petitioner is being selected/appointed, there are so many candidates who have not been selected after the consecutive recruitments. They will also claim to be selected and appointed as of the case of the petitioner.” It is a definite stand of the respondents that no candidate was appointed who had obtained less marks than the petitioner. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that a panel for appointment cannot be kept alive for more than one year. Therefore, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 06, 2010. Judge kadyan