MANDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of English language teacher in May 1999 in pursuance of an advertisement published by Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Board to the Director, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Welfare Department on 11.10.2001. The petitioner was issued an appointment letter dated 25.2.2002 on usual terms and conditions with the stipulation to furnish the requisite medical fitness certificate from the Chief Medical Officer, Bathinda, and also the particulars in the prescribed form of verification for character and antecedents of the petitioner before reporting for duty to the Director. The petitioner submitted medical fitness certificate as well as police verification but she was not given posting orders for extraneous reasons. The petitioner, thus claimed that miscarriage of justice has been caused to the petitioner because of non- issuancz of the posting orders in spite of her having been selected and appointed in accordance with law.

(2.) The State, in reply, came up with a plea that on receipt of list of selected candidates for the post of English language teachers from the Board, the candidates were asked to complete required documents for the first appointment/ entry in the Government service as per the Government instructions but before the antecedents verification report was received, the State Government issued instructions on 5.3.2002 to all Heads of Department not to issue appointment letters against the recommendation of the Board. The case of the petitioner along with other cases was referred to the Administrative Department giving full facts. The Administrative Department vide Memo dated 3.7.2002 has advised the Director not to proceed further on the recommendations of the Board. Such communication was on the basis of Chief Secretary's letter dated 10.5.2002. the letter dated 10.5.2002 reads as under :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 15640 of 2002 (Paramvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.), decided on 29.5.2002, wherein, in almost identical circumstances the Court has held that the ban in the letter dated 10.5.2002 would be applicable to the post which are lying vacant and in all cases where they have not yet been acted upon. It was, thus, concluded that once the appointment letter is issued the post is not vacant which can be said to come within the purview of letter dated 10.5.2002. Consequently, a direction was issued to issue letters of appointment to the petitioners in the said case.