RAJINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that despite she having been issued the appointment letter dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure P-3), no posting order was issued. Aggrieved by this, petitioner had approached this Court along with others by filing CWP No.7401 of 2013 titled as Kulwant Kaur and others Versus State of Punjab and others, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2013 (Annexure P-6) directing the Director Public Instructions (Elementary Education), Punjab, to consider and decide the legal notice served by the petitioners. The said legal notice was decided by the Director Public Instructions (Elementary Education) vide order dated 19.08.2013 (Annexure P-8) rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The said order of rejection was challenged by the co-petitioners of the petitioner by filing CWP No.25025 of 2014 titled as Sharanjit Kaur and others Versus State of Punjab and others, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure P-9). The said judgment has been implemented by the respondents and posting order issued to the petitioners in that writ petition on 05.05.2016 (Annexure P-10). Petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

(2.) Respondents have taken a plea that the petitioner has approached this Court after delay and it has also been asserted by the respondents that the petitioner did not appear in the counselling in the year 2009, because of which she is not entitled to appointment to the post of ETT. Plea has also been taken that the petitioner has been a fence sitter and has approached this Court after an inordinate delay, because of which she is not entitled to the benefit. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.11597 of 2016 titled as Parminder Kaur and others Versus State of Punjab and others decided on 02.06.2016 (Annexure R-3), where this Court has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have been sitting over the matter and have approached the Court after an inordinate delay and, therefore, the prayer has been made for rejection of the writ petition. Assertion has also been made that some other candidates, who are higher in merit, would be available for appointment and, therefore, the petitioner in any case would not be entitled to the relief as has been made in the present writ petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case including the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.11597 of 2016 titled as Parminder Kaur and others Versus State of Punjab and others, on which heavy reliance has been placed by the respondents to deny the benefit of appointment/posting to the petitioner.