CWP No. 15702 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15702 of 2007 Date of decision : 28.07.2011 Renu Bala ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No. 3 **** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) The petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 05.09.2007 (Annexure P-8) qua petitioner whereby appointment to the petitioner has been denied in spite of the fact that she was higher in merit and candidate lower in merit has been appointed and further issuance of direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner w.e.f the date when junior to the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of ETT with all consequential benefits. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 04.03.2006, the petitioner had applied for the post of Primary School Teacher on 09.03.2006. She had applied in the category of dependent of Ex-Serviceman (General Category). As per the advertisement, the CWP No. 15702 of 2007 -2- candidates with 10+2 and ETT and B.A/B.Sc/B.com + B.Ed were eligibile. The merit list of the candidates was to be determined on the basis of marks obtained by the candidate in 10+2 plus ETT and in B.A. B.Sc, B.Com plus B.Ed. Petitioner's application form was also duly accepted by the department after verification of all the original documents vide Annexure P-2 and the receipt of application form No. 10 dated 09.03.2006 was also given to the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondents declared result of the selected candidates and published the same in the newspaper (Annexure P-3). A perusal of Annexure P-3 shows the list of B.Ed teachers who were selected. As per Annexure P-4, the name of the petitioner figures in Block Hoshiarpur-I and she was posted at Manak Dheri. Thereafter, a revised selection list of 204 B.Ed teachers was issued on 23.08.2006 (Annexure P-4) and the petitioner's name again figured in Block Hoshiarpur-I and she was posted at Manak Dheri. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 again issued another list of selected candidates of 190 B.Ed teachers but the name of the petitioner was missing in that list which is Annexure P-5. So, the petitioner approached the office of respondent No. 3 that her name was deleted from the selection list of Hoshiapur Block-I but the officials of respondent No. 3 did not allow her to meet respondent No. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a representation before respondent No. 3 on 18.09.2006 vide Diary No. 1707 dated 18.09.2006 (Annexure P-6) but no reply was received by the petitioner from the office of respondent No. 3. The petitioner then along with other petitioners filed CWP No. 15255 of 2006 and the same was disposed of on 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) by giving a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. Vide order CWP No. 15702 of 2007 -3- dated 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-7), a direction has been given to the Director Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, to examine the facts of each of the petitioners on basis of the issue raised, in case, there has been any mistake, corrective measures be taken and in case, the appointments have been made in terms of Rule 11 of the 2006 Rules, a detailed speaking order was to be communicated to each of the petitioners. Corrective steps be taken only after the affected persons are afforded an opportunity of hearing. This process be completed within six months. In compliance of this order, the department considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same by holding that the petitioner's merit was lower than the last candidate selected with marks 127.12 and the petitioner had secured 125.36 marks . The petitioner had applied in pursuance to the advertisement in March, 2006. 274 posts were transferred to Zila Parishad and fresh applications were invited in November, 2006. Two merits list were prepared, one for March 2006 and the second for November, 2006. Petitioner was lower in merit when she was considered for appointment in response to the advertisement published in November, 2006. Mr. B.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.09.2007 (Annexure P-8) by referring to Annexure P-9 initial selected list which was declared on 09.08.2006 in pursuance to the March, 2006 advertisement. In this list, petitioner's name has been shown at Sr. No. 30120 in the category of Ex-servicemen (general) with 125.56 marks. The petitioner had participated in the selection of March, 2006 advertisement Candidates in the category of Ex-servicemen (general). The last candidate had secured 107.67 marks. Hence, petitioner being in the category of Ex-servicemen (general) had CWP No. 15702 of 2007 -4- secured higher marks i.e 125.56 marks. The department has also admitted this fact in the impugned order dated 05.09.2007 (Annexure P-8). The department has tried to confuse the selection process of 2 advertisement i.e March, 2006 and November, 2006.The last candidate as per the merit who was posted in November, 2006 selected, got 127.12 marks. In the Ex-Serviceman dependent (General)s, the petitioner is claiming appointment against the March, 2006 advertisement as she was much higher in merit by securing 125.31 marks. In the counter affidavit filed by Mohinder Singh Kainth, Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hoshiarpur, they have tried to explain. In the additional affidavit filed by Deshi Raj Bhagat, Additional Deputy Commissioner(D), Hoshirapur, the position has been further explained. The petitioner had applied under the ward of Ex-servicemen (General category). However, necessary documents in support of this category were not annexed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was not considered in general category. The merit of the last selected candidate under general category in response to the advertisement dated 04.03.2006 is 136.16% whereas the merit of the petitioner is 125.56%. Complete result is Annexure A-1. In response to advertisement dated 25.11.2006, the petitioner applied under ward of Ex-serviceman (General) category along with necessary documents. The petitioner was considered in ward of Ex-serviceman (General category) and the last selected candidate in ward of Ex-serviceman (General category) is having merit of 127.12% whereas the merit of the petitioner is 125.56%. There were six more candidates above the petitioner who were not selected in the ward of Ex- servicemen (General category). Therefore, the petitioner was not selected in the CWP No. 15702 of 2007 -5- second selection as well. Photostat copy of complete selection list is Annexure A-2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The short controversy involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner had applied in response to March, 2006 advertisement with proper documents to get the benefit in the category of Ex-servicemen (General) category. The official record has been perused. The application form which was filed by the petitioner in response to the advertisement of March, 2006 contains the matriculation certificate of 1993, 10+2 certificate of PSEB result cum detailed mark sheet of graduation (1year, 2 year and 3 year), B.Ed certificate. Finally a letter issued by the Warrant Officer of Air Force Record Office, Subroto Park, New Delhi on 09.08.2001 has been attached. This certificate has been issued to Ex. R.K. Kaushal, Village Ajjowal, Post Office, Tehsil Hoshiarpur. It certifies the birth of child in the discharge certificate. This information has been sent to District Sainik Welfare Office, Hoshiarpur. It certifies that Renu Bal was born in 1978 in Ajjowal, Hoshiarpur. Photocopy of I. Card of the father of the petitioner has also been attached. It is contended by the respondents that in response to advertisement dated 04.03.2006, the petitioner applied under Ward of Ex-serviceman category (General). However, necessary document in support of this category were not annexed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was considered in general category. The merit of the last selected candidate under general category, in response to advertisement dated 04.03.2006 is 136.16% whereas the merit of the petitioner is 125.56%. The photocopy of complete result is Annexure R-1. The respondents have further contended that CWP No. 15702 of 2007 -6- in response to second advertisement dated 25.11.2006 the petitioner applied under ward of ex-serviceman (general) category along with necessary documents. The petitioner was considered in ward of Ex-serviceman (General) category and the last candidate in ward of Ex-serviceman (General) category is having merit of 127.12% whereas the merit of the petitioner is 125.56%. There were six more candidates above the petitioner who were not selected in the ward of Ex-serviceman (General) category. Therefore, the petitioner was not selected in the second selection as well. The objection raised by the respondents that as per the advertisement the petitioner was to annex the certificate issued by the District Social Welfare Office, Hoshiarpur was mandatory, which is not borne out in the advertisement (Annexure P-1). The candidates were to be given receipt indicating the application was in order and that original documents have been verified. As per the condition of the advertisement, the receipt issued while accepting the form of the petitioner shows that her application for Ex- serviceman (General) category has been accepted. It also means that the application was in order and the original documents have been verified. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that petitioner when considered for November, 2006 advertisement was not found to be a dependent of Ex-serviceman. The Identity card of the petitioner's father Mr R.K. Kaushal was verified being an officer. The letter was also issued to the petitioner's father about the date of birth of her daughter which was 29.09.1978, which was endorsed and referred to District Sainik Welfare Office, Hoshiarpur for information. From the above facts, it transpires that the petitioner was not guilty CWP No. 15702 of 2007 -7- of making any wrong statement in her application. On the basis of letter issued by the Air Force on 09.08.2001, a lenient descendant certificate was issued to the petitioner, which was attached with the application form in the November, 2006 advertisement. The District Sainik Welfare Office, Hoshiarpur endorsed the information sent vide letter dated 09.08.2001 by the Air Force Record Office, Subroto Park, New Delhi and thereafter, the lenient descendent certificate was issued on 27.11.2006 by the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Hoshiarpur. At best, it can be said that the petitioner got this certificate on November 27, 2006 on the basis of information which was sent to District Sainik Welfare Officer, Hoshiarpur way back on 09.08.2001. Since the information had been sent to the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Hoshiarpur in 2001 for the first selection process initiated in March, 2006, the petitioner was eligible for all intents and purposes. It is not disputed that in the March, 2006 selection, the petitioner had got 125.56% marks higher score than that of the last candidate appointed who secured 107% marks. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- and a direction is given to the respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Primary School Teacher with effect from the date when the juniors were appointed and also with all consequential benefits. July 28, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE