NARESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of a selection process which called applications from eligible candidates for filling up the vacant posts of Vocational Mistress (Computer Science) in the year 2009. The advertisement was published in newspapers on September 23, 2009 inviting applications to fill up 7654 posts on contractual basis in the teaching and non-teaching cadre in the Department of Education which included 78 posts of Vocational Masters/Mistresses in Computer Science. The petitioner belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Castes (R&O) and possesses the prescribed qualifications. She applied for the post on line. A tentative merit list was drawn which was put in public domain on December 13, 2009 inviting candidates for scrutiny of their original certificates/documents. The petitioner participated in this process. A category-wise merit list was displayed where her name figured at Sr. No.40 in her reserved category. She secured 50.1429 marks. For reasons which are not necessary to be gone into a revised combined merit list of male and female candidates was displayed in the last week of February 2011 where her name did not figure though in the earlier one they did. Four candidates in the reserve category of R&O were issued appointment letters allotting them different stations. It transpires that a public notice dated June 29, 2011 was issued for those candidates who could not attend counselling for the various posts advertised informing them that would have another chance to attend counselling a process slated on July 10, 2011 where their documents would be rechecked. She participated in the re-checking exercise.

(2.) It is the say of the petitioner that on June 26, 2012 she came to know that appointment letters had been issued to selected candidates and some of whom had joined service but still a large number of vacancies remained unfilled from amongst candidates who were higher in merit than some of those appointed. She sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Director, SCERT, Punjab with respect to availability of vacancies. She was informed by letter dated June 26, 2012 that there were 78 posts of Vocational Masters/Mistresses (Computer Science) and out of those 8 were for SC (Mazhbi and Balmiki) and 8 earmarked for SC (R&O). The PIO informed that he could offer no further help in the matter of furnishing information of the result of the selection from his office since the list had been forwarded to the DPI (Secondary Education) Punjab such piece of information could be sought from that office. On information received on August 24, 2012 from the office of DPI (SE) on her application she came to know that out of 8 posts 5 had been filled while 3 remained vacant.

(3.) Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in offering an appointment to her as per her merit she made a representation on the day following the receipt of information i.e. on August 25, 2012 praying that she be issued an appointment order. Having met with no success, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.17696 of 2012 which came up for hearing and was disposed of on the same day with a direction to the respondents to consider her claim as per her merit and take a final decision on her representation by passing a speaking order within three months. The respondents kept the matter lingering till September 09, 2013 when the competent authority passed the impugned order rejecting her claim on the ground that no candidate with lower merit than the petitioner had been appointed though it was admitted that three posts are still lying vacant in the category of the petitioner from the old selection process. Against the impugned order, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated September 09, 2013 and for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to appoint the petitioner against one of the three vacant posts.