SANTOSH KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Director, Public Instructions (Elementary Education), Punjab, whereby, as per the direction issued by this Court in CWP No.4225 of 2016, titled as 'Santosh Kaur & others Vs. State of Punjab & others', decided on 02.03.2016 (Annexure P-15), the claim of the petitioners was duly considered and rejected on the ground of delay and latches.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reason assigned by respondent No.2 for rejecting the claim of the petitioners is unacceptable, as there was no delay on the part of the petitioners, as they have all through been pursuing their matters with the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioners were issued appointment letters on 16.11.2012 (Annexure P-5) after the counselling held on 13.12.2011. Thereafter, as per the mandate for first appointment in Government service, medical of the petitioners was got done. Petitioners reported for receipt of the posting orders but as per the office order dated 04.12.2012 (Annexure P-17) passed by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), SAS Nagar, the petitioners were not issued the posting orders despite mentioning therein that they were eligible candidates and were issued appointment letters. This was done in pursuance to the directions issued by the Director Public Instructions (Elementary Education), Punjab, who had so done on the basis of the decision of this Court in CWP No.11071 of 2011, titled as 'Abhishek Rishi Vs. State of Punjab' and a ban was imposed by the Government of Punjab till further orders. Petitioners despite the said office orders approached the respondents by submitting a representation dated 08.01.2013 (Annexure P-7) for issuing them the posting orders but all in vain. These letters were sent through registered post and therefore, it is asserted by the petitioners' counsel that the respondents cannot state that the petitioners had not so approached the respondents for issuing them posting orders/allotment of stations. Not only the official respondents but the Chief Minister, Punjab, was also approached by the petitioners on 19.07.2013 (Annexure P-10) through registered post. He, therefore, asserts that it cannot be said that the petitioners had not been approaching the respondents for the relief as has been claimed by them.

(3.) Counsel submits that in the light of the decision taken by the Director Public Instructions (Elementary Education), Punjab, as was conveyed to the District Education Officer, SAS Nagar, dated 04.12.2012 (Annexure P-17), the posting orders were said to be kept in abeyance as the said amendment/ban was till further orders, because of which the petitioners were not allowed to join and in the absence of posting orders/allotment of stations, they were denied the benefit of their selection.