IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16683 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 03, 2009 Rashpinder Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - S/Shri Kapil Kakkar, Ranjivan Singh, Mod Yousaf, R.S. Manhas, M.L. Sachdeva, M.S. Sidhu and B.R. Mahajan, Advocates, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This shall dispose of a bunch of petitions, filed in challenge to similar orders, viz. CWP No.16683 of 2009 (Rashpinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16596 of 2009 (Guriqbal Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16428 of 2009 (Raminder Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16607 of 2009 (Baldev Raj vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16632 of 2009 (Rajesh Kumari vs. State of Punjab & CWP No.16683 of 2009 [2] Others); CWP No.16672 of 2009 (Parvinderjeet Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16687 of 2009 (Jasvir Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16688 of 2009 (Kamaljeet Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16689 of 2009 (Gurminder Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16699 of 2009 (Gurdev Raj vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16707 of 2009 (Balwinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16708 of 2009 (Mandeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16712 of 2009 (Manjinderjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16717 of 2009 (Manjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16718 of 2009 (Sandeep Kumar Bhalla & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16720 of 2009 (Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16735 of 2009 (Arti Verma vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16737 of 2009 (Anita Kumari vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16731 of 2009 (Kamaldeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16736 of 2009 (Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of Punjab & Others); CWP No.16745 of 2009 (Rajwinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others); and CWP No.16746 of 2009 (Sukhdeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others). Facts in brief are that by virtue of an advertisement issued by the State of CWP No.16683 of 2009 [3] Punjab, Department of Education, 9998 posts of Teaching Fellows were advertised. In about 400 cases, the respondents prima faice found that the experience certificate(s)/documents appended with the Application Forms was/were bogus (forged and fabricated). So as to give an opportunity to such persons, an advertisement was given by the respondents to enable all such persons to appear before a Committee to establish that the certificate(s) infact was/were genuine. In all the cases that have flooded the Court, the respondents have passed orders cancelling the agreement of appointment, thereby removing the persons from service with immediate effect. While passing the orders, reference has been made only to the certificate(s) that purportedly was/were found to be forged/ fabricated. The writ petitions have been filed in challenge to the orders of removal on various grounds including that the petitioners have been allowed to serve for about a year whereafter the impugned action has been taken; the certificate(s) that had been termed as bogus (forged and fabricated) was/ were infact genuine as is evident from the documents appended with the writ petitions. CWP No.16683 of 2009 [4] It has been specifically pleaded that the documents placed on record with the writ petitions in support of genuineness of the certificate(s), were produced before the Committee. No notice of the documents has however been taken by the administrative authorities; every individual is vested with a right on issuance of a letter of appointment; the orders passed by the respondents are cyclostyled orders and do not deal with the individual case of the petitioners, as projected by them; reasoned and speaking orders have not been passed; and proper opportunity of hearing has not been given. In the petitions earlier filed on the grounds given above, the matters had been adjourned to 10.11.2009 after issuance of notice of motion. The matters that are being taken up today, have been shown in urgent list and are being disposed of in view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent-State. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the respondents, considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, have taken a decision to review/ reconsider the cases of all the persons who want to bring evidence/ material to show that the CWP No.16683 of 2009 [5] documents/ certificates submitted by the petitioners were genuine. In pursuance of this exercise, an advertisement has already been given in `The Tribune’ and ‘Punjab Kesri’ on 30.10.2009 and Punjabi daily `Ajit’ dated 31.10.2009. The public notice makes it evident that all the persons who have been removed from service on the ground of relying on bogus (forged and fabricated) certificates, belonging to the areas (except District Gurdaspur) are required to appear in the Office of Bharat Scouts Guide, Near Law Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh at 10.00 A.M. The persons from District Gurdaspur are required to appear on 5.11.2009. Learned counsel has further informed the Court that a Committee has been constituted which shall accept the representations/ documents to be submitted in support of claim of each person. While accepting the documents, a receipt duly signed by authorised signatory would be given for each of the documents. On considering claim of each person, after verification of the documents so submitted, a reasoned and speaking order would be passed. Learned counsel further states that on account of paucity of time, another public CWP No.16683 of 2009 [6] notice would be given by way of a corrigendum or otherwise, asking the removed persons to come present and project their case as detailed above. Learned counsel has assured the Court that speaking and reasoned orders would be passed in regard to each of the individual cases and the same shall be conveyed to the concerned persons. In view of the stand taken on behalf of the respondent-State, it transpires that the impugned orders are required to be reviewed/ reconsidered by the respondents. Under the circumstances, cause of action does not survive in so much as fresh decision vide reasoned and speaking orders, would be taken by the respondents after considering the individual claim of the petitioners/ candidates. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents to complete the process as soon as possible, in the interest of administrative efficiency. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that some such persons have not been relieved and continue to serve. If that be so, it is directed that the persons not relieved till date as a consequence of the orders of removal, would be CWP No.16683 of 2009 [7] allowed to continue to serve till orders are passed by the respondents on review/ reconsideration of the claims. Copy of the order be placed on each file of the connected cases taken up today. Copy of the order be given under signatures of the Reader of this Bench. (AJAI LAMBA) November 03, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?