CWP NO.16851 OF 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 10.2.2009 Raj Deep Kaur ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Ms.Maninder, Advocate for petitioner Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) CM No.1285 of 2009 Replication to the written statement is taken on record. CM disposed of. CWP NO.16851 OF 2007 Respondent no.1 issued advertisement notice published in “Daily Ajit” in its issue dated 23.10.2006 inviting applications for the posts of PTI teachers. For General and various reserved categories, the number of posts were also specified in the advertisement. The aforesaid advertisement further provided that the recruitment for the relevant category shall be made without any test or interview and on the basis of merit of qualifying examimation only. The merit was to be determined on the basis of CWP NO.16851 OF 2007 (O&M) 2 percentage after clubbing the marks obtained in the prescribed minimum academic and professional qualifications. On the basis of the merit determined by the selection authority, a select list was published in Hindustan Times in its issue dated 19.11.2006 (Annexure P-6). The name of the petitioner did not figure in the select list. Vide public notice dated 12.11.2006 (Annexure P-4), it was notified that all the candidates from General Category having cut off merit of 57.778% and above were required to appear before the Scrutiny Committee. It was alleged by the petitioner that she was unwell and thus had given a authority letter to her father to present her certificates on her behalf before the Scrutiny Committee on 14.11.2006. It is further mentioned that her father appeared before the Scrutiny Committee, but respondent no.3 declined to consider the original certificates of the petitioner and on that basis, the petitioner has been excluded from the final select list. The specific averments/allegations made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition have not been denied by the respondents. To the contrary, it has been stated that the contents of paragraph 9 of the writ petition are denied for want of knowledge. When there is specific averment/allegation, “denial for want of knowledge” is no denial. According to the petitioner, her percentage on the basis of the laid down criteria comes to 59.33% whereas that of respondent no.4 comes to 56.42%. This fact is not disputed in the reply. The petitioner has higher merit than respondent no.4, but she has been denied the appointment only on the ground that she did not appear before the Scrutiny Committee. Respondent No.4 was duly served, but chose not to appear and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.2.2008. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- CWP NO.16851 OF 2007 (O&M) 3 book. It is not disputed that the petitioner has obtained higher merit than respondent no.4. The petitioner cannot be denied the appointment. Respondent no.4 is the last selectee in the select list having lesser merit than the petitioner. The averments/allegations made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition by the petitioner have not been specifically denied. In the totality of the circumstances, this petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent no.4 is hereby set aside and it is directed that the respondents- State shall conduct scrutiny of the certificates of the petitioner within a period of two weeks and if all the certificates are found in order, the petitioner shall be granted appointment. The petitioner shall be given the seniority on the basis of merit in the select list. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of the fact that firstly she did not perform the duty and secondly, respondent no.4 had already drawn emoluments for the period she has worked. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to notional benefits like increments, pay revision etc., if any, during all this period. Let the entire process of scrutiny of certificates and consequential appointment of the petitioner be completed within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is furnished to respondent no.3. No order as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 10.2.2009 MFK NOTE:Whether to be referred to Reporter or not:YES/NO