TARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition was filed in 1995. A mandamus is sought directing respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Music (Vocal) on the strength of a letter issued to her in December, 1991 (P-1), informing the petitioner that she was found suitable for the post and that she had been selected for appointment and her name had been recommended to the Director, School Education Department, Punjab, Chandigarh. The letter was issued by the Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee and Divisional Education Officer, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The petitioner complains that her selection was against 1% quota reserved for blind persons in terms of the executive instructions dated 24.11.1982 (P-2) reserving 1% posts each for blind, deaf and orthopaedically handicapped persons. The petitioner is admittedly blind by birth. This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 29.1.1996. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not granting her appointment, the petitioner has approached this Court through this petition. The petitioner has relied upon the written statement filed by the State in CWP No. 7333 of 1992 'Jagjit Singh & another vs. The State of Punjab & others' in which in para 6 it was stated that the present petitioner and one Mumta Bhatt were found suitable for appointment by the Departmental Selection Committee.

(2.) On notice of motion being issued respondents put in appearance and filed written statement. The stand of the respondent-State is that the petitioner's name was recommended in the waiting list of physically handicapped (blind) candidates. Three posts had been earmarked for this special category. However, three posts were filled in accordance with the directions of this Court in CWP No. 17444 of 1991 and the aforesaid CWP No. 7333 of 1992. In these circumstances, the petitioner's name could not be considered by the Government as the vacancies meant for the special quota were already filled up on the directions of this Court. The directions in the aforesaid two cases were complied with by issuing appointment letters against the reserved posts of blind candidates from the waiting list and the quota stood consumed. There was, therefore, no substantive vacancy against which the claim of the petitioner could be considered. In para 7 of the reply on merits, the respondents have recounted the manner in which 300 requisitioned posts of different categories were filled up.

(3.) The petitioner has filed replication stating that the respondents were trying to create a new case by referring to the decisions of this Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions,. The directions of this Court were for selection of Kashmiri Lal, Jagjit Singh and Sanjeeva Kumari. It has been further stated in the replication that Sanjeeva Kumari did not join as Lecturer and as such only two candidates had joined out of the alleged five posts earmarked for the blind category.