HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 12300 of 2000, 12316 of 2000, 14074 of 2000, 13551 of 2000, 15374 of 2000 and 14699 of 2000, as the law points involved in these writ petitions are the same. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 12300 of 2000.

(2.) The petitioners in these petitions seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to interview the petitioners for the posts of Head Teachers/Centre Head Teachers. The petitioners who at the relevant time were working as JBT/Head Teachers in different government schools in the State of Punjab, either did not apply or having applied did not appear at the interview for the posts of Head teachers/Centre Head Teachers/BPEO, being beyond the maximum age of 45 years on the relevant date i.e. 1.1.1996.

(3.) An advertisement had been issued on 8.1.1996 by the State of Punjab for filling up 2059 Posts of Head Teachers, 375 posts of Centre Head Teachers and 57 posts of BPEOs in Government Primary Schools of Punjab Education Department. The applications were invited from eligible candidates upto the age of 45 years as on 1.1.96. Since the petitioners were overage they either did not make any application in response in the aforesaid advertisement or having applied did not appear for interview. Some of the teachers working in the government schools filed CWP No. 7369 of 1996 seeking a direction from this Court to the respondents to re-fix the upper age limit in terms of Rule 19 of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1994 Rules"). This writ petition was decided by this Court on 14.1.1997. The prayer of the petitioners therein for quashing the upper age limit fixed in the advertisement was rejected. However, a direction was issued to the respondents-authorities to consider the request of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons for re-fixation in the requirement of age in terms of Rule 19 of the 1994 Rules. It was further directed that while taking a decision in this regard, the competent authority shall take into consideration that no regular appointment has been made to the posts of Head Teacher, Centre Head Teacher and Block Primary Education Officer during the last one decade or so. The competent authority was directed to take decision in this regard at least 15 days before the actual selection is made by the Departmental Selection Committee. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, a decision was taken by the respondents to refix the age limit from 45 years to 52 years. At the time of taking the decision, the respondents took note of the fact that if the upper age limit is not re-fixed, then the senior teachers having more experience would not be considered for the higher posts and juniors will steal a march over the seniors. On the basis of the aforesaid decision, a notice was issued on 27.8.2000, in continuance of the advertisement dated 8.1.1996 to the remaining candidates who were not invited at that time or who had applied, but did not present themselves for interview on 12.9.2000 and 13.9.2000. However, no invitation to appear for interview was sent to the petitioners in the present petitions. They, therefore, made a representation to the respondents on 4.9.2000. when no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.