SUNITA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, in response to Advertisement No. 6 dated 11.08.2001 issued by respondent No. 3-Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') inviting applications for 274 posts of Lecturer (College Cadre) which included two posts for Lecturer in Music (Instrumental), out of which one post was reserved for the scheduled caste category, applied for the same belonging to the Balmiki Community, which is recognized as a scheduled caste and she being eligible for the post. She was called to appear for interview vide letter dated 22.02.2002 to be held on 06.03.2002 in the office of the Commission. Result of the selection was published on 12.03.2002 and the petitioner was shown to be selected in the scheduled caste category in the subject of Music (Instrumental). She was asked to attend office of the Commission on 20.03.2002 along with the scheduled caste certificate issued under her father's name. She appeared and submitted the requisite certificate. In the meanwhile, the then Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission, Mr. Ravi Sidhu was arrested by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab for taking bribe and committing illegalities and irregularities in making the various selections. All appointments made under his chairmanship since 1996 came under cloud. A press note was published on 25.07.2002 by the Government of Punjab, according to which, it was decided to cancel 600 tainted recruitments made on the basis of selection conducted by the Commission identifying 41 categories of posts which, in the opinion of the Government, was made not on the basis of merit and money had presumably changed hands. The category, in which the petitioner had applied for in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.08.2001, did not find mention therein but appointment letters were not issued.

(2.) While hearing CWP No. 7584 of 2003 titled as Dr. Mohinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others and other connected matters, wherein challenge was to the decision of the Government cancelling all selections made by the Commission in the year 2002, an observation was made that the Government may consider if selection of the posts of 2002, which were annulled, could be scrutinized by a Select Committee. On the basis of these observations of this Court, the Government constituted a committee and after consideration, accepted the report of the Select Committee in principle. The report dated 07.06.2005 concluded that the selection of candidates of 35 posts including 16 categories was nontainted and accordingly, vide notification dated 06.02.2006, the Government decided to amend the earlier notification dated 16.05.2003 to the extent of omitting these categories from the earlier notification having found them to be non-tainted. The Government thereafter re-conducted the interview of the candidates of these omitted categories who had applied in response to the advertisement issued in the year 2001. After re-conducting of the interview, the 88 candidates, who were found suitable, were issued appointment letters but kept the file of 265 candidates with it. A common appointment order dated 11.09.2007 issued to 52 Lecturers in English has been appended as Annexure P-11. Petitioner and some other candidates, who had been duly selected in the year 2002 but were not issued appointment orders on account of Sidhu Scam, approached the respondents for issuance of appointment orders to them as in the case of 88 Lecturers and were assured that they would take necessary steps in this regard. However, to the utter surprise and shock of the petitioner, Advertisement No. 1 was published in the press by the Commission on 04.04.2008 inviting fresh applications for recruitment to 265 posts of Lecturer in the Higher Education Department, which included one post of Music (Instrumental) in the category of scheduled caste, for which the petitioner stood selected earlier in the year 2002. This action of the respondents stands challenged by the petitioner through the present writ petition assailing the advertisement issued by the respondents inviting applications to the post, on which the petitioner stands already selected.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially two posts of Lecturer in Music (Instrumental) were advertised, out of which, one was reserved for the scheduled caste category. There is no competition or comparison between the general category and scheduled caste category candidates so far as the reserved post for the scheduled caste is concerned.