JASVIR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions No. 18406 of 1997 and 518 of 1999 which were ordered to he heard together and in which common questions of law and fact arise. Since the arguments were addressed in Civil Writ Petition No. 18406 of 1997 the facts are being taken from this case.

(2.) BY a notice published in the daily 'Tribune' on 12.1.1996 the Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee (Teaching), Punjab invited applications for filling up amongst others 1000 posts of Physical Training Instructors (PTI) in the Punjab Education Department. The educational qualification prescribed for these posts was "Matric with Diploma in Physical Education recognised by Punjab Government". Petitioner No. 1 after passing the matriculation examination joined the Certificate Course in Physical Education conducted by the Director of Sports and Youth Services, Maharashtra, Pune and passed the said examination in the year 1983 from Amravaii centre. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 after passing her 10 + 2 examination did her Certificate Course in Physical Education from the Maharashtra State and passed the examination in this course in the year 1981 from the same Aniravati centre. Both the petitioners applied for the post of a PTI in response to the aforesaid advertisement. They were interviewed by the Selection Committee in November, 1996 and the result of the selection was published in the daily 'Jagbani' Jalandharon 31.3.1997. The petitioners were selected for the post . The Director of Public Instructions (S), Punjab by his letter dated 4.4.1997 directed all the District Education Officers in Punjab to issue appointment letters to the selected candidates after checking the original certificates in regard to their educational and professional qualifications. It is alleged by the petitioners that they visited the office of respondents No. 3 and 4 for obtaining the appointment letter but the same was not issued to them whereas others who were selected along with them had been appointed. The petitioners along with two other candidates, namely, Joginder Singh roll No. 275904 and Gurdarshan Singh roll No. 276933 who also had not been given appointment like the petitioners, served on the respondents a notice of demand for justice through their counsel requesting the respondents to issue to them the letters of appointment in view of their selection by the Departmental Selection Committee. After receipt of the notice of demand the respondents issued the appointment letters to the aforesaid Joginder Singh and Gurdarshan Singh but the same were not issued to the petitioners. They then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 10897 of 1997 in this Court which was disposed of on 31.7.1997 with a direction to the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioners for appointment as Physical Training Instructors and take appropriate decision on their notice of demand within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the court order. In pursuance to those directions the District Equation Officer, Ferozepur by his order dated 17.10.1997 rejected the claim of petitioner No. 2 for appointment on the ground that the Diploma in Physical Education as possessed by her had been obtained from the State of Maharashtra which course had not been recognised by the State of Punjab and, therefore, she was ineligible for the post. Similarly, the claim of petitioner No. 1 was also rejected for the same reason though it is alleged that in her case no order had been passed by the District Education Officer. It was then that the present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated 17.10.1997 and for a direction to the respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioners in view of their selection by the Departmental Selection Committee.

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the parties and are of the view that the respondents have acted in a most arbitrary manner. No doubt, the petitioners were selected by the Departmental Selection Committee but the appointment letter was to be issued only after their original certificates pertaining to their educational and professional qualifications were checked. The concerned District Education Officers found that both the petitioners were ineligible as they had passed their Certificate Course in Physical Education conducted by the Director of Sports and Youth Services, Maharashtra, Pune which had not been recognised by the State of Punjab. A perusal of the advertisement makes it clear that the essential qualification prescribed for the post of PTI was "Matric with Diploma in Physical Education recognised by Punjab Government". Since the Diploma in Physical Education as possessed by the petitioners is not recognised by the State Government, they were ineligible for the post and could not, therefore, be given the appointment letter. However, the grievance of the petitioners that some other candidates who also possessed similar certificates from the State of Maharashtra were given appointment is justified and it is here that the respondents in creating such a discrimination have acted illegally and arbitrarily. Jogin -der Singh and Gurdarshan Singh have been appointed as Physical Training Instructors even though they had obtained their Diploma in Physical Education from the State of Maharashtra. We fail to understand how these two candidates were appointed when the Diplomas possessed by them had not been recognised by the State of Punjab. It is clear that the respondents have been adopting the policy of pick and choose for reasons best known to them and their action cannot but be deprecated. It is also admitted that some other candidates too were appointed as Physical Training Instructors though they also had obtained their Diploma in Physical Education from the State of Maharashtra. It is no justification to say that these candidates were given the appointment letters on obtaining an undertaking from them. the undertaking does not make them eligible. It appears that ineligible persons have been appointed for wholly extraneous reasons which, in our opinion, require to be inquired into. However, the petitioners cannot claim appointment merely because some other ineligible persons like them had been appointed to the service. They cannot claim the protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in this regard which only guarantee equality before the law in lawful actions of the State and not that a wrongful benefit given to a person can be claimed by another similarly situated person on the ground of constitutional right of equality. It is not jus! and fair that persons equally ineligible as the petitioners should be allowed to continue in service. The respondent have admitted in the written statement that the matter of removal from service of such ineligible person is under their active consideration. We, therefore, direct the respondents to complete the action for their removal from service as already initiated and if not so initiated, initiate the same and complete the process in accordance with law within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This will be done after complying with the principles of natural justice and affording an opportunity of hearing to all those who may have to be removed. We further direct the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Education to look into the circumstances in which ineligible persons came to be appointed as Physical Training Instructors and take suitable action in accordance with law against those found guilty. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary Government of Punjab, Department of Education for necessary action.