NEERAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 10225 of 2010 and 8550 of 2012. However, the facts have been extracted from CWP No. 10225 of 2010.

(2.) The petitioner, who was a candidate for the post of Vocational Masters/ Mistress (Secretarial / Commercial Practice) in response to the advertisement dated 23.9.2009, has filed the present writ petition, with a grievance that the tentative merit list had not been prepared strictly in terms of the criteria laid down in the advertisement itself.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was eligible in terms of the advertisement issued for the above said post. The tentative merit list was displayed on the website in which name of the petitioner was at Sr. No. 111, however, finding that while preparing the provisional merit list, the petitioner had not been given marks for professional qualification, she filed the present writ petition. The selections were finalised much thereafter. Though the appointments were made in July, 2011, but still the respondents did not take steps to correct their mistake. As against 39 vacancies advertised for the General Category, only 35 candidates were appointed and 4 seats remained vacant. He further submitted that vide order dated 7.1.2011, this Court had directed that selection/ appointment, if any made pursuant to the advertisement shall be subject to out come of the writ petition. In the present case, the merit list of the candidates has not been prepared strictly in terms of the criteria laid down in the advertisement itself. The same being erroneous, the selection made on that basis deserves to be set aside or in the alternative, the petitioner may be offered appointment. He further referred to an order passed by this Court on 9.9.2013, wherein all the aforesaid facts have been noticed in brief and learned counsel for the State sought time to explore the option of offering appointment to the petitioners, who are two in number, instead of quashing the entire selection.