YAMINI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The many posts of Lecturers were advertised in 2009 for direct recruitment. The selection of the candidate of which the petitioner complains as wrongful was offered appointment as lecturer in the year 2011 and joined service the same year.

(2.) Mr. Kakkar says that the petitioner had approached this Court in 2011 in a writ petition wherein the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner. The order of this Court in that case has not been placed on record. However, another order was passed in writ petition filed by the petitioner in 2014 for the same relief which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the respondents to pursue remedy, if any. This order is on file and indicates that the Court was not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction on the grievance. The remedy diverted to by Court would necessarily mean outside extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Thereby meaning to say administrative.

(3.) In pursuit of her remedy before the administrator, the petitioner has received as a result the impugned order dated August 05, 2015 from the office of the Director Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab where the issue of discrimination raised by the petitioner qua competitor Ms Sonika has been explained to say that experience required to be earned before passing the eligibility qualification was not admissible towards weightage for experience in the criteria framed. The administrative authority has reasoned that in cases where such mistakes [weightage to experience prior to earning essential qualification]were made they would have to be deducted from the total marks scored by the candidate. Consequently, the experience earned before passing MA and M.Ed. had not been counted towards experience. None was given.