VANITA SOOD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this court impugning the order dated 21.7.2009 (Annexure P -22), passed by the Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Department of Health and Family Welfare, whereby though the period from 13.1.2006 till 13.2.2008 has been treated as duty period for all intents and purposes but the petitioner was denied salary for that period for the reason that she did not perform her duty.

(2.) IN pursuance to the advertisements issued on 1.4.1996 and 1.7.1996 calling applications for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer, the petitioner was selected and appointed in general category, even though she had applied in sports category. The selections were challenged by some of the unsuccessful candidates. The matter went upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 3.2.2000 quashed all the appointments and directed the State to prepare a fresh merit list. In 2000, Administrative Department again sent a requisition for filling up various posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officer including one post in sports category. Even against 1996 advertisement, no selection was made against the post reserved for sports category. The petitioner was re -interviewed in sports category but despite the fact that she was more meritorious and having National Level 'B' Grade sports certificate, her candidature was rejected. She represented and while accepting her representation, the petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officer on 23.2.2000. On 11.11.2005, the petitioner was issued a notice to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated as she was selected beyond the advertised posts. Despite comprehensive reply filed by the petitioner, services of the petitioner were terminated on 13.1.2006. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No. 1025 of 2006. The same was disposed of on 20.11.2007 on the assurance of the respondents that appointment letter will be issued to the petitioner within two weeks. Thereafter, on 13.2.2008, the petitioner was issued appointment letter, the contents of which clearly show that termination of services of the petitioner earlier was totally illegal as her candidature was not considered in sports category, which she was entitled to and the post in that category remained unfilled. As reinstatement of the petitioner was not with consequential benefits, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 16.2.2009. As the respondents remained silent, COCP No. 482 of 2009 was filed, which was disposed of on 16.3.2009 with liberty to challenge the terms of order dated 13.2.2008, vide which the petitioner was given fresh appointment while not granting the benefit of past service. To the legal notice got served by the petitioner, the Administrative Department sought opinion from the Advocate General, who opined that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits for the period she remained out of service as she was not at fault but despite that the petitioner was not granted the benefits. In fact, vide impugned order dated 21.7.2009, while treating the period from 13.1.2006 to 13.2.2008 as on duty for all intents and purposes, the petitioner was denied pay and allowances on the ground that she did not perform her duty for that period.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner was a candidate in sports category and she was not awarded four marks by Subordinate Services Selection Board for her higher qualification as per the criteria laid down and in case those four marks are added, she would have toped the list of candidates belonging to sports category. It was under these circumstances that a statement was made before this court in a writ petition challenging termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was appointed in sports category in excess of the quota prescribed under the rules. In support of the submissions, reliance was placed upon Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman, 1991 5 SLR 602 , Vidya Parkash Harnal v. State of Haryana, 1995 3 SCT 785 Ex -Constable Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2009 1 SLR 349 , Hukam Singh v. State of Haryana and another, 2001 2 SCT 696 , Union of India and others v. Ram Singh and another, 2004 1 SCT 279 and Seeta Charan Banwari v. M. P. Rajya Bhumi Vikas Nigam and others, 2004 1 SCT 249.