CWP No.27 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 27 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 24, 2009 Saveti Devi ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.K.Malik,Senior Advocate with Mr.P.K.Rohilla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner was appointed Art and Craft Teacher on 11.8.2004. However, subsequently after a period of more than three years her appointment was ordered to be cancelled on the ground that another candidate more meritorious than her had to be accommodated in view of decision of this Court in CWP No.2555 of 2004. By then the petitioner had been in job for more than three years. It has been argued that originally vide advertisement Annexure P-1 664 posts of Art and Craft Teachers had been advertised and only 425 candidates including the petitioner had been found eligible. Thus, it is argued that the petitioner could have been adjusted against any one of those CWP No.27 of 2008 2 posts which could not be filled up due to non-availability of eligible candidates. It has also been argued that no notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. In defence the two points taken were that (i) due to the orders of this Court one candidate more meritorious than the petitioner had to be accommodated and thus there was no escape from the termination of the services of the petitioner and that (ii) after selection of 425 candidates the remaining posts had been withdrawn. In CWP No. 7062 of 2003 decided on 1.7.2004 in almost similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “ ........ In compliance of the direction given by the Court, respondent No.2 considered the claim of Smt.Anita Yadav and Ms. Rachna Yadav and accepted the same. He held that they had been wrongly considered along with the candidates of general category and that they were entitled to be appointed against the posts ear- marked for BC (B) category. Simultaneously, he concluded that the services of the petitioners should be terminated because they were lower in merit and their selection was in excess of the posts reserved for BC (B) category. ............................................................................................. ............................................................................................. ........................................................................................... We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel and perused the record. In the backdrop of the fact that Smt.Anita Yadav and Ms. Rachna Yadav were more meritorious than the petitioners and they were wrongly considered as candidates general category, the action taken by respondent No.2 to redeem the injustice caused to them by denial of appointment against the CWP No.27 of 2008 3 posts reserved for BC(B) category cannot be faulted on any constitutional or legal parameter. The consequential exercise undertaken by respondent No.2 to terminate the services of the petitioners cannot be nullified on the ground of violation of the terms and conditions embodied in the letters containing offer of appointment and the mere fact that they have completed the initial period of probation of one year cannot entitle me to claim the right to hold the posts of JBT Teacher. However, we find substance in the plea of the petitioners that the respondents should be directed to adjust them against the posts reserved for BC (B) category which were available at the time of termination of their services. It is not the case of the official respondents that the petitioners were instrumental in the exclusion of the names of Smt. Anita Yadav and Ms. Rachna Yadav from the list of BC (B) category candidates or that they had made any misrepresentation to the competent authority for securing appointment against the reserved posts of JBT Teacher. It is also an uncontroverted position that in view of their appointment as JBT Teachers, the petitioners did not apply for recruitment against the posts advertised by Chandigarh administration and the Government of Punjab and that as on the date of the impugned order, i.e. 30.4.2003, both of them had completed more than 2-1/2 years service. Therefore, it appears just and proper to direct the official respondents to accommodate them against the posts of JBT Teacher reserved for BC (B) category which were available on the date of termination of their services.” It has to be noticed that in the present case it cannot be lost sight of that no notice whatsoever was issued on the petitioner. As regards the second point, in my opinion even if that be so yet it has not been denied that even today posts of Art and Craft CWP No.27 of 2008 4 Teachers are lying vacant. In the circumstances the ratio of the above mentioned decision would apply squarely to the facts of this case. Consequently this petition is allowed. The order (Annexure P- 4) terminating the services of the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner shall continue in service but shall be ranked below the candidate to accommodate whom her services were sought to be terminated. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 24 , 2009 sunita