BALBIR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being duly qualified for the post of Social Study Mistress in the State Education Department, Punjab, applied for the said post in response to an advertisement dated 16.7.1974. The petitioner though not meritorious enough to warrant immediate appointment was kept on the waiting list and was so informed vide Annexure P-3 dated 2.2.1976. It has been averred by the petitioner that despite numerous requests having been made to the Department, she was not given regular appointment and feeling frustrated, approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. In para Nos.10 and 19 of the petition, it has been stated by her that at the time of the filing of the writ petition, she was working against a leave vacancy in the Department but as she apprehended that her services could be terminated at any time, made a prayer that as an interim measure her services be not terminated. Notice of motion was issued on 1.4.1980 by the Division Bench and stay of termination of the service meanwhile was also granted by way of interim relief. The case was taken up on 22.4.1980 and adjourned to 16.5.1980. On 16.5.1980 the State counsel sought more time to file the reply and the case was adjourned to 3.6.1980 and stay was directed to continue. On 17.6.1980 the case was admitted and stay was directed to continue as no return had been filed even on that day. It is, therefore, apparent from the sequence of events as set out above that the petitioner has continued on her post in obedience to the stay order granted by this Court way back in 1980. In reply to paras 10 and 19 of the writ petition, the stand of the respondent is that petitioner was working in a leave vacancy and that she was required to be relieved as soon as a permanent incumbent was available to join the post. On merits, it was set out that the petitioner was not meritorious enough to secure appointment.

(2.) After going through the record, 1 find that the stand of the respondent-State is correct and the petition in normal circumstances would perhaps have been dismissed. It will be seen that the State sought a number of adjournments to file its reply and this not having been done, the Division Bench admitted the writ petition and directed the stay of termination of services to continue. Be that as it may, it appears to me that the petitioner has been in service for almost 12 years and it would be most unjust for me to dismiss the writ petition and throw her out on the road, as it is apparent to me that the experience gained by her fully justifies her continuance on the post in question.

(3.) Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be treated as having been validly appointed in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 16.7.74. A further direction is issued to the respondents that the petitioner will be granted all benefits of service which would be due to her in view of this judgment. The entire exercise would be completed within a period of six months from today. As the counsel for the petitioner has passed away, the office is directed to send a copy of this judgment free of cost under registered cover to the address given by the petitioner in the petition as also C/o Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab. No costs.