SARABDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case does not turn on law. It turns on facts. This is the 4th round of litigation the petitioner has suffered looking for a job she competed for successfully in direct recruitment in 2006, with two earlier writ petitions and a contempt petition filed in this Court by her pursuing the subject relief but never losing heart. The petitioner has been knocking at the doors of this Court for long trying to secure an appointment as a Head Mistress on the strength of her merit position in the select list in the women category falling at Serial No.106 against the 108 posts advertised in the Punjab education department. She has been in a seesaw of candidates falling in and falling out while she was precariously poised on the fringe of the merit list. Her name was in the twilight zone and in the shifting sands. Just as hard as she has been chasing her rightful due, the officers of the State in charge of affairs have with equal force denied her rightful due and which is so easily demonstrated by her counsel by a simple calculation of advertised vacancies on his finger tips and their filling up. But respondents have been recalcitrant and in no mood to relent in their litigative stamina which may have exhausted the best of us and to give up the chase for peace and quiet. She is before the court the 4th in time and in despair clutching as it were to the last straw, stuck in quicksand looking for the hand of justice held out to her to pull her out. Below are reasons why I would rescue her from the morass and allow her claim and grant her the desired relief with costs to secure her a consideration for an appointment as a teacher.

(2.) It is not disputed by the State and is asserted by the petitioner that some advertised vacancies were not filled on account of non-acceptance of offers of appointment by some of the selected candidates and cancellation of appointment offers to some ineligible candidates issued in mistake and upon discovery of ministerial errors committed by the functionaries of the State Government remain vacant and unfilled sufficient to accommodate the petitioner.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts which are necessary to dilate are that 215 posts of Head Masters/Head Mistresses were advertised on 1 st October, 2006 in the general category to be filled in the ratio of 50:50 each from amongst the female and male candidates. Selection done, the merit list was prepared and published in the daily print media on 21st November, 2006 where the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No.106. Thus, she was well within the zone of consideration amongst 108 posts for female candidates [fractions favouring ladies]. However, the petitioner was not offered an appointment. She made a representation in December, 2006 to the Government asking it to redress her grievance and appoint her as per merit.