CWP No. 13661 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13661 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.08.2011 Neelam Kumari ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G, Punjab Mr. K.S. Boporai, Advocate for respondent No. 4 *** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) The petitioner is seeking writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection/appointment of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who have been selected and appointed on the post of Punjabi Master (Female sports persons S.C. (O) though they have less marks than the petitioner and even respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have not applied for sports category. In pursuance to advertisement dated 11.06.2006, the petitioner had applied in the female sportsman S.C. (O) category and on the basis of the criteria prescribed in the advertisement. Thereafter, a public notice was published in newspaper whereby all the candidate forthe category of female sports S.C. (O) were called for scrutiny of their original document for 13.11.2006. Accordingly, petitioner appeared before the committee. Learned CWP No. 13661 of 2010 -2- counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 prepared the merit list (annexure P-5) whereby respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been appointed against the category of S.C. (O) female sportsman though they were much lower in merit to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were not having any sports activities certificate, they were appointed against the rules. As per the comparitable merit list, the detailsof mertis list is given as below:- ORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD,PUNJAB SCO No.156-160,SECTOR 8-C, CHANDIGARH CATEGORY PUNJABI MASTER (FEMALE SPORTS PERSON SC (O) Name Graduation % B.Ed % Total Remarks Neelam Kumari 1351/2400 57.29 729/1000 72.9 129.19 "C" Grade Sports Certificate Balbir Kaur 1194/2400 49.66 656/1000 65.6 115.35 "C" Grade Sports Certificate Jaswinder Kaur 1405/2400 58.54 874/1200 72.83% 131.38 No Sports certficate Amanpreet Kaur 1077/1995 55.23% 570/800 71.25% 128.63 No Sports certficate The petitioner's name figures at Sr. No. 1 by getting 129.19 marks and all the others respondents are below her in merit. This information has received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have not applied against the sports category despite that they have been issued appointment letters. The petitioner is duly qualified for appointement to the post. Learned State counsel has referred to written statement filed by the respondent No. 3 in which it has been mentioned that the last candidate in the Scheduled Caste (others) category has obtained 136.41% marks and CWP No. 13661 of 2010 -3- therefore the petitioner does not fall in the selection zone in the revised/amended merit list. Learned State counsel admits that this reply was factually incorrect as the petitioner had applied against the female sportsman S.C. (O) category . The petitioner has annexed her original application form (Annexure P-8) which clearly shows she had applied against the female sportsman S.C. (O) category. In view of the above facts, the petitioner has been wrongly denied appointment to the post despite the fact that she had got higher marks than respondent Nos. 4 and 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to given the appointment to the petitioner with all consequential benefits. A cost of ` 20,000/- be paid to the petitioner. August 10, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE