VIJAY KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is working as Hindi Teacher, has filed the present petition for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner having been appointed retrospectively with effect from the date a candidate lower in merit than the petitioner was given appointment as Hindi Teacher.

(2.) THOUGH in the petition, relief pertaining to seniority has also been claimed, however, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of arguments, submitted that the petitioner is restricting her petition only qua the claim for notional fixation of her pay.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being eligible, applied for the post of Hindi Teacher in response to the advertisement issued by Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short, 'the Board') on 1.11.1981. The essential qualification therefor was Matric with Prabhakar and OT. The petitioner appeared in the written test on 29.9.1984. Having qualified the same, she was called for interview on 15.1.1985. On 4.3.1985, she was informed that after selection, her name has been recommended by the Board to Director of Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab for appointment as Hindi Teacher. The name of the petitioner was recommended to the District Education Officer, Amritsar for issuing the appointment letter. Though other candidates, who were recommended along with the petitioner, were issued appointment letters but the same was denied to the petitioner, even though she was at No. 1 in the merit displayed in the office of District Education Officer, Amritsar. It was on the ground that OT qualification possessed by the petitioner had not been recognised in the State of Punjab. Aggrieved against the aforesaid action of the authorities, the petitioner filed CWP No. 311 of 1986 in this court, which was allowed on 17.7.1991 holding the petitioner eligible for the post and the respondents therein were directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner as Hindi Teacher. In pursuance thereof, on 12.8.1992, the petitioner was issued the appointment letter and joined her duty. On joining, the petitioner moved a representation for giving her the benefits of seniority, pay fixation etc. from the date other candidates selected in the same process were granted as the petitioner was deprived of the appointment from that date not on account of any fault on her part.