RENU AHUJA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these two petitions, viz. C. W. P. Nos. 15759 and 13180 of 1991, have a common grievance. The challenge is directed against an additional qualification prescribed by the Commission (Respondent No. 2), in its advertisement of July 13, 1991 for 187 posts of Lecturers by which it has been directed that the candidates "should have qualified the comprehensive test prescribed under the guidelines issued from time to time by the University Grants Commission or by the Government of Punjab. " The petitioners maintain that at the time of occurrence of these vacancies the above stated qualifications had not been prescribed, and, as such, the posts have to be filled up in accordance with the rules which were in force at the relevant time. The facts as stated in C. W. P. No. 15759 of 1991 may be briefly noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner herein passed her B. Com. Examination in the year 1985 in IInd Division. She passed the M. Cora. Examination, in 1987 and the B. Ed. Examination in the year 1988. She secured First Division in the M Corn. as well as B. Ed, Examinations. On October 9, 1989 the Punjab Public Series Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') advertised certain posts of Lecturers in various Government colleges. It is averred that the qualifications prescribed in this advertisement were in conformity with the provisions of the Punjab Educational Service (College Cadre Class II) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). However, no selections were made in pursuance of this advertisement in spite of the fact that various candidates, including the petitioner, had applied for the post. On July 13, 1991 another advertisement appeared in the daily Tribune. In this advertisement it was, inter alia, stipulated as under :qualifications.-

(3.) THE primary grievance made out in the petition is that the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution having not been amended, the posts of Lecturers have to be filled up in accordance with the Rules which were in force at the relevant time, and that only such qualifications can be prescribed as were laid down prior to the occurrence of these vacancies. The petitioner avers that she was eligible to be considered at the time when the posts came into existence. The qualifications now prescribed in the advertisement of July 13, 1991, make her ineligible. The revision of qualifications has been challenged as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.