BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 25.03.2013 at Annexure P -4 passed by the Director of Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, whereby the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment to the post of Vocational Master (Mechanical) has been rejected. Brief facts which would require notice are that the School Education Department, State of Punjab issued a public notice for recruitment of 7654 posts in the teaching and non teaching cadre. Out of these, 2106 posts were meant for Vocational Masters/Mistresses in different trades. 78 posts were earmarked for the mechanical trade. The petitioner who claims to be eligible on account of possessing the requisite qualification prescribed for the post duly applied under the reserved category of SC (R&O). In such process of selection, the merit of the petitioner was determined at Sr. No. 62.

(2.) THE petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 13775 of 2012 raising a specific plea that in the first process of counselling candidates up to merit position No. 36 in the reserved category (R&O) had been called and as such, he was not even eligible to participate in such counselling exercise. Thereafter, a second counselling was duly announced by issuing of a public notice and was held on 10/11.07.2011. It was specifically pleaded in the earlier writ petition that on account of certain compelling personal circumstances, the petitioner could not attend the second process of counselling. It was against such categoric pleadings that a prayer was made that certain posts of Vocational Masters (Mechanical) are still lying vacant and since candidates lower in merit have been considered, the petitioner may be afforded a chance for consideration by holding another special counselling. It was in the light of such specific averments/stand taken that this Court had shown indulgence and disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 24.07.2012 to the following effect:

(3.) LEARNED counsel while assailing the impugned order dated 25.03.2013 (Annexure P -4) would now contend that the petitioner was not to blame insofar as his having absented himself from the second process of counselling. Towards such assertion, it is sought to be contended that in fact the merit position posted on line whereby the candidates were invited to participate in the process of counselling was not proper and not strictly in the order of merit.