HARPREET KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the promotion of respondent No.5 as Senior Assistant, vide order dated 26.12.2012 (Annexure P-14) against vacancy reserved for handicapped persons and for quashing the letter dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure P-18) consigning the representation of the petitioner to record. She has further sought a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to consider her name for appointment by promotion against the post reserved for handicapped persons.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is afflicted by polio and the left side of her body is paralyzed since the age of two months as per the medical certificate dated 22.07.1997 (Annexure P-1) and she is permanently disabled to the extent of 85%. She graduated in the year 1999. In pursuance to advertisement, Annexure P-2, issued by respondent No.4, the petitioner applied against the two posts of Clerks reserved for handicapped persons. After interview and test, she was selected and issued appointment letter dated 28.08.2000 (Annexure P-4). Respondent No.5 was appointed as Clerk on transfer basis on 28.07.1998 (Annexure P-5). He met with an accident during his service tenure on 17.02.2003, as a result of which he suffered 50% permanent disability. On the basis of medical certificate dated 28.09.2006 (Annexure P-8), an entry regarding disability was made in his service book on 24.09.2010 (Annexure P-9). Vide application (Annexure P-10), he applied for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant against the post reserved for handicapped persons. The petitioner also applied for promotion against the aforesaid post, vide Annexure P-11. Her application was recommended by the Tehsildar Rajpura to respondent No.4 on 10.08.2011. On an advice sought by respondent No.4, vide letter dated 01.02.2012 (Annexure P-13), respondent No.2, advised that no distinction can be drawn between a person who is handicapped before joining service or who becomes handicapped during his tenure of service. Ignoring the claim of the petitioner, respondent no.4 granted promotion to respondent No.5 on 26.12.2012 (Annexure P-14) against reservation roster point no.71. However, respondent no.5 was arrested on 20.11.2013 in FIR case No.32 dated 20.11.2013 under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. He was, thereafter, convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- by the Special Judge, Patiala, vide judgment dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure P-15). Respondent No.5 was subsequently dismissed from service. After his dismissal from service, petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.05.2014 (Annexure P-16) which was consigned to record and intimation in this regard was sent to the petitioner, vide letter dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure P-18). Petitioner issued a legal notice dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-19) which was replied to by respondent no.4, vide memo dated 05.08.2016 (Annexure P-21). She has filed the instant petition seeking quashing of Annexures P-14 and P-18.

(3.) Respondents No.1, 3 and 4 in their joint reply have admitted the factual position. It was submitted that case of promotion of petitioner and respondent no.5 had been duly considered in the light of instructions Annexure R-2, R-3 and R-4 issued by respondent no.2. They have justified their action of promoting respondent no.5 by submitting that on the basis of seniority list prepared on 12.12.2011 (Annexure R-1) by the office of respondent no.4, the name of petitioner was at serial no.127 whereas the name of respondent no.5, was at serial no.113. They have further submitted that in compliance of the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by this Court, an office order dated 11.11.2016 has already been prepared regarding the subject matter and sealed in an envelope till the final direction by this Court.