MEENAKSHI SINGLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the short grievance of the petitioner is that even though she was qualified for the post of Junior Lecturer in Chemistry in view of her academic qualifications of M.Sc., M.Phil. and PhD. in Chemistry and had in fact been continuing on ad hoc basis as such. i.e. on the same post for which interviews were held yet she was not called for interview resulting in the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4, thereby violating the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity in the matter of employment enshrined in Articles 14/16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 4th Oct., 1985, as Junior Lecturer (Chemistry) in Government Polytechnic, Bhatinda, as a result of selection against the said post. Since the appointment was only for a period of six months or until a candidate recommended by the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board joined, the petitioner continued as such till 13th of Nov., 1986. According to the Punjab Government instructions dated 1st Sept., 1986 (Annexure P.2), the services of ad hoc employees who had completed one year's service were regularised and it was further "decided that the Departmental Selection Committees constituted vide this Department letter No. 12/30/86-IGE/ 5139 dated 15.4.1986 shall invite for interview and consider along with others all ad hoc employees appointed after 1.4.1984 to Class III services or posts". Despite this, when interviews were held for the aforesaid post of Junior Lecturer in Chemistry in Sept., 1986, the petitioner was not called for interview and respondent No. 4 was selected. On the basis of that selection, respondent No. 4 (Pritpal Kaur) is continuing in service till today.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, the stand of the respondents is that the post in question had been reserved for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes, therefore, the petitioner was not invited for interview. Secondly, as she had not completed one year's service on the date of interview because it was short of that period by a few days, and her services were not regularised, she was not called for interview.