HARMINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Lecturer in Physical Education. Having failed, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition with a prayer that the respondents be directed to consider her claim for appointment to the post of Lecturer on the basis of criteria as it existed in the year 1988. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) In 1987, the Punjab Public Service Commission advertised certain posts of Lecturers in Physical Education. The petitioner claimed that she belonged to the category of Economically Backward Members of the Society. She was interviewed by the Commission. According to the petitioner, she was placed at serial No. 5 in the order of merit. However, her name was not recommended for appointment as only four posts had been reserved for the Economically Backward Class. According to the petitioner, the Commission had recommended the name of one Miss Seema Arora against the reserved post. She complained that Miss Seema Arora did not belong to the Backward Class. On receipt of complaint, the matter was enquired into and ultimately, a report was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner on March 20,1990. It was found that Miss Seema Arora had filed a false certificate and had wrongly claimed to be a member of the Economically Backward Class. Accordingly, vide order dated September 10, 1991, her appointiflent was cancelled. Miss Seema Arora filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15088 of 1991 in this Court. It was dismissed vide order dated November 1, 1991. Thereafter the petitioner represented that she should be appointed against the resultant vacancy. Her request having not been accepted, she has approached this Court with the grievance that the action of the respondents in not considering her claim for appointment is illegal and arbitrary. She has consequently prayed for the issue of necessary directions to the respondents.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Punjab Public Service Commission. The facts as averred in the petition have been controverted. It has been stated that 19 posts of Lecturers in Physical Education have been advertised. Out of these, only two were reserved for the members of the Economically Back ward Class belonging to the Punjab State. 16 candidates including the petitioner were called for interview. Actually 13 candidates appeared. The names of two candidates were recommended against the reserved seats. The petitioner's averment that in fact names of four candidates have been recommended has been specifically denied. It has been admitted that on receipt of complaint, an enquiry had been conducted against Miss Seema Arora by the Deputy Commissioner. In pursuance to the findings recorded by him, the appointment of the said candidate was cancelled. The resultant vacancy alongwith six other vacancies which have become available in the meantime were advertised by the Commission, The recommendation for appointment against those six vacancies was made to the Government on April 10, 1992. It has been further stated that representation dated January 28, 1991 submitted by the petitioner had been received in the office of the Commission which was filed in view of the fact that vacancy which had occurred on the cancellation of appointment of Miss Seema Arora had already been advertised and the selection had been made. It has been further slated that the appointment of Miss Seema Arora having been withdrawn, the petitioner did not acquire any right to be appointed.