ARADHANA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a candidate for the post of Math Mistress in B.C. (Female) Category, has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondents to offer her appointment, as candidates lower in merit in her category have been appointed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 7654 posts of teachers in different subjects were advertised on 23.9.2009. This included 1275 posts of Math Mistress. As per the advertisement issued, the applications were to be submitted upto 9.10.2009. Out of the total posts, 50% were reserved for male, whereas 50% were reserved for female. Subsequent to the advertisement, a corrigendum was issued in the newspaper on 27.9.2009 amending condition No. 6 of the advertisement, which required filing of a certificate of B. C. category. Now the same was required to be filed in terms of the latest instructions issued by the Government as against the earlier instructions issued. The candidates were given further opportunity to make correction in their applications already filed on-line upto 23.10.2009. Within the time permitted in the first advertisement issued, the petitioner submitted his application vide registration No. 20034640. The petitioner secured 58.592% marks in the provisional merit list in B.C. Category. She was placed at Sr. No. 254. In the initial counselling, the candidates upto the merit of the petitioner were not called, however, in the counselling held on 8.7.2011, the petitioner was also called. When she appeared, her candidature was rejected on the ground that B. C. certificate is in the name of the husband and was issued after the cutoff date, namely, 9.10.2009.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that immediately after the advertisement for the posts of Math Mistress appeared in the newspaper, the petitioner applied for issuance of B.C. Certificate. The report was made by the Patwari on 7.10.2009. However, thereafter the same remained pending with Tehsildar, who signed the same only on 22.10.2009. On account of this delay, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Even otherwise in the corrigendum, as published in the newspaper on 27.9.2009, the candidates were given liberty to submit fresh certificates in terms of the latest instructions issued by the government. The correction could be made in the application submitted on-line upto 23.10.2009. The certificate had been issued prior thereto. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the candidature of the petitioner could not be rejected on that ground. Still further, the submission was that persons lower in merit than the petitioner have already been appointed, namely, respondent No. 5 secured 57.846% marks, whereas respondent No. 6 secured 57.513% marks. They were below in merit as compared to the petitioner. In support of the plea that the certificate even if produced on the date of counselling should have been considered and the candidature of the petitioner could not be rejected on the ground, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this court in C.W.P. 14796 of 2011 Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 15.2.2013. He further submitted that 67 posts of Math Mistress are still lying vacant in B.C. Category in terms of the information furnished by the office of the Director, Education Department (Senior Secondary), Punjab dated 14.11.2013.