RAJ KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint her on the post of Assistant Librarian pursuant to her selection made by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board').

(2.) THE petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category and to support that fact, a certificate dated 1.7.1980 issued by the competent authority has been appended as An - nexure P -4. She has acquired the qualifications for the purposes of being considered for the post of Assistant Librarian. The Board advertised such six posts to be filled in the Technical Education and Industrial Training Department, vide Advertisement dated 7.1.1994. Later on 3 more posts were added and that out of the total nine posts one was reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidate.Pursuant to this advertisement, the petitioner applied to be considered against the post reserved for the aforestated category. She had also disclosed that she has the experience as a Librarian and to substantiate this fact, a certificate dated 20.7.1996 has been appended as Annexure P -5 issued by the Principal M.D.K.Arya Public School, Siali Road, Pathankot. She was called for the interview and after being found successful was recommended to be appointed accordingly. She re - ported to the Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training (Technical Education Wing) -respondent No. 2 on 16.1.2002 alongwith her testimonials for the purpose of verification of the qualification/experience. Upon verification, respondent No. 2 sent a letter dated 1.3.2002 for the purpose of filling proforma for character verification within seven days. The compliance was made and her option regarding her choice for place of posting was also taken. Despite the aforestated compliance, the petitioner has not been given the letter of appointment though similarly situated selected candidate have already been given such letters. A representation dated 13.9.2002, copy Annexure P -10 was made to the competent authority. When nothing was heard, yet another representation dated 22.10.2002 was submitted. It has been averred that one such candidate namely Tarsem Lal who had been selected in the same process as the petitioner, had been appointed and is working under respondent No. 2 in some Polytechnic College.

(3.) THE stand of the Government is that a clarification had been sought from the concerned quarters as to what action has to be taken in such cases where the recommendation of the Board had been received and the process has been initiated prior to the issuance of the order of ban by the Government. It has been informed vide letter dated 26.9.2002, by making a reference to Demi -official letter dated 10/13 -5 -2002 issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, no letter of appointment could be issued to any one including the persons like the petitioner. So far as the other factual status is concerned, the same has been admitted.