MANORMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the year 1999 and that notice of motion was issued vide order dated August 5, 1999. During the pendency of the petition certain other acts/facts came into existence and resultantly, the petitioner sought permission to file the amended writ petition, which was taken on record by order dated March 5, 2002, passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The respondents have filed written statement. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Advocate General, representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4, had taken time for filing the additional affidavit in terms of the direction issued vide order dated April 21, 2003. The respondents filed a short affidavit dated January 8, 2004 of Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab, which was taken on record. However, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the respondents have not submitted categoric reply; admitting or denying the contentions of para 13 of the amended writ petition. Consequently, the State had taken time to file the appropriate affidavit. An affidavit of Dr. J.S. Dalal, Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab dated 27.1.2005, had been submitted on the date fixed i.e. 27.1.2005. Mr. N.S. Boparai, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, very fairly admitted that proper reply has not been submitted pertaining to para 13 of the writ petition. Consequently, another short affidavit dated May 16, 2005, was submitted on the date fixed i.e. 16.5.2005.

(2.) The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of appointment dated September 20, 2001, copy Annexure P-11, in favour of respondent No. 5. It is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner, being eligible, has not been considered for direct recruitment for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit). It is further the case of the petitioner that the qualification of M.Phil. could not have been incorporated, being against the rules/instructions applicable for the purpose of spelling out the qualifications for being appointed as Lecturer (Sanskrit).

(3.) The petitioner acquired the qualification of B.Ed. and Master of Arts (Sanskrit) from Punjabi University. She had taught the subject of Sanskrit at Shaheed Udham Singh Senior Secondary School, Sanaur Patiala from 1.4.1991 to 15.12.1994. She also possesses knowledge of Punjabi language upto Matric Standard. Later on she worked as Lecturer Sanskrit, Govt. Ayurvedic College, Patiala from 27.11.1995 to 24.4.1996.