SURESH SAINI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the order dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure P-5) whereby Director General School Education, Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No.2 has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (History) (for short, "PGT"), for which he had been selected and placed at Sr.No.13 in the merit list of general category against 25 vacant posts. Prayer has also been made for quashing of public notice dated 24.06.2011 (Annexure P-7) vide which the earlier selection was sought to be cancelled and the process of recruitment of PGT teachers for 4 Adarsh Schools and 21 Model Schools stopped and the candidates were ordered to be refunded their fee after verifying the facts from the applications vide public notice dated 01.12.2012 (Annexure P-8) and the advertisement notice dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) stood illegally and arbitrarily cancelled/withdrawn, denying the right of the petitioner for appointment on the post of PGT (History), on which he was duly selected. Assertion has also been made that thereafter a fresh advertisement was issued on 09.12.2012 (Annexure P-9) for the same posts qua which advertisement had been earlier withdrawn.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possesses the qualifications of B.A., M.A. (History) and B.Ed and as such was eligible for appointment to the post of PGT (History). In pursuance of the advertisement dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner applied for the post of PGT (History). He was selected and placed at Sr.No.13 in the merit list. Twenty Five posts of PGT (History) of general category were advertised and, therefore, the petitioner was hopeful of being appointed to the post. The petitioner was further confronted by the issuance of a public notice, whereby the whole recruitment process was put on hold for the PGTs. Subsequently an advertisement dated 09.12.2012 (Annexure P-9) was again issued by the respondents, calling for fresh applications for appointment to the same posts. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.14219 of 2013 (Amarjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another), whereby he had challenged the action of the respondents in not appointing him and thereafter within a short span of time, proceeded to issue a fresh advertisement for appointment on the same posts. The writ petition came up for hearing before this Court and finally vide order dated 10.09.2019 (Annexure P-13), finding that the petitioner has not challenged the public notice dated 01.12.2012 (Annexure P-8), granted liberty to him to challenge the same. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition, wherein all these impugned orders, as referred to above, have been challenged.

(3.) It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in cancelling the process through which the petitioner has been appointed and thereafter subsequently issuing a fresh advertisement for filling up of the same posts and thereafter withdrawing the said advertisement is a malafide exercise of powers on the part of the respondents. He asserts that in the said process, petitioner has become over age and has lost an opportunity to participate in future selection process. He, thus, contends that the impugned orders deserve to be set-aside and a direction issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of PGT (History), for which he was selected in the year 2011 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure P-1).