DEVINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court praying for consideration of the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Science Mistress in the light of the fact that persons lower in merit have already been appointed.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an advertisement dated 23.9.2009 inviting applications to fill up 7654 posts on contract basis in the teaching/non teaching cadre of the Department of Education was issued wherein 450 posts were kept for the Science Masters/Mistresses. The petitioner in pursuance thereto applied for the said post and obtained 62.86 marks and was placed at Merit No.43 in the backward class category. Notice for holding counselling for filling up the posts was issued qua Masters/Mistresses of Science was first held on 13.12.2009 wherein candidates upto Merit No.29 were called. Petitioner obviously could not participate in the said counselling as her Merit Number was 43. The second counselling for Science Masters/Mistresses was held on 15.7.2010 when the petitioner did not participate. Another notice for counselling which was to be held on 27.7.2010 was issued which ultimately was postponed by another public notice.

(3.) As per reply which has been filed by the respondents, postponed counselling was held on 9.10.2010 (Annexure R-1) where the petitioner did not participate as per the stand of the respondents. Fourth counselling was again published to be held for Science Mistresses on 8.7.2011 (Annexure P-8) when the petitioner participated. The petitioner was not considered for appointment to the post of Science Masters/Mistresses taking a plea that she has not earlier participated in the counsellings which were held for filling up of posts. The plea which was additionally taken was that the counselling dated 9.10.2010, which was held, was the last counselling and the petitioner having failed to avail the final opportunity given to participate therein cannot be permitted to participate in the counselling dated 8.7.2011. Another plea which has been taken is that the counselling dated 8.7.2011 was meant for candidates who had obtained merit No.91 onwards. Since the petitioner is at S.No.43 and therefore could not participate in the same.