SUNITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a candidate for appointment to the post of Punjabi Mistress, has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure P-9) and 27.2.2009 (Annexure -P15).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance to the advertisement issued for various posts on 12.1.1996, the petitioner applied for the post of Punjabi Mistress. The last date for submission of applications was 30.10.1996. The interviews were held on 22.11.1996 and the result was declared on 2.1.1997. The name of the petitioner was in the select list at Sr. No. 732, however, after considering the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6750 of 1999 Bhupinderpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2000 5 SCC 262, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 31.10.2000, which was an arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. One of the eligibility condition in the advertisement was that the candidate should have passed B. Ed. with Punjabi as subject. The petitioner had appeared for that examination as an additional subject in April, 1996, the result of which was declared on 8.10.1996, wherein the petitioner was declared fail. She applied for re-evaluation and simultaneously applied for the post, as the petitioner was quite confident that there was some error in checking of the answer books and in re-evaluation, she may be declared pass. The stand of the petitioner was vindicated when the result of re-evaluation was declared on 10.2.1997 and she was declared pass having secured 104 out of total 200 marks. No doubt, the result of re-evaluation was declared after the last date for submission of applications, however, the same relates back to the date of examination or at the most the date of declaration of result at the first instance. As result of the petitioner at the first instance was declared before the last date fixed for submission of applications, her candidature was required to be considered.

(3.) Learned counsel further referred to a communication dated 17.6.2013, wherein it is certified by Kurukshetra University that the petitioner had appeared in B. Ed. examination in April, 1996 (additional subject). That has to be taken as the date of her eligibility. On account of any error or delay on the part of the University in evaluation of the answer books and declaration of result, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. He further submitted that earlier the petitioner had filed CWP No. 14665 of 2003, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.12.2008 with liberty to the petitioner to move a representation to the authorities for the relief prayed for. The aforesaid representation was rejected vide order dated 27.2.2009, the legality of which is under challenge before this court. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon Thaper Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala through its Registrar v. Anupama Arya,1990 1 RSJ 306 and Raj Kumar v. Punjabi University, Patiala and others,1991 3 RSJ 19.