RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fate of the petitioner hangs on the validity of his degree. He was denied appointment despite selection under the public advertisement dated September 23, 2009 published in various newspapers including in Daily Ajit, Jalandhar for filling up posts of Lecturers (English) in Teaching Cadre in the Department of School Education (Secondary Education), Punjab. The last date of submission of applications was October 09, 2009.

(2.) The petitioner is a reserved category candidate who applied in advertised quota meant for SC (R&O). The petitioner was successful and was issued an appointment letter dated April 28, 2011. However, he was not allowed to join but no reason was supplied to him for denial of posting. He made a representation which remained undecided compelling him to approach this Court in CWP No.3968 of 2012 which was disposed of on July 27, 2012 after receiving reply from the State. The Department informed the Court that the petitioner had obtained his degree of Masters in Arts in the subject of English from Vinayaka Missions University, Salem, Tamil Nadu in the year 2009. The Court was apprised that steps have been taken to find out whether the degree relied upon was genuine and whether the University which conferred the degree is recognized by the UGC, New Delhi. The Court was assured that in case the degree was found genuine the petitioner would be permitted to join the post of Lecturer (English). On this assurance, the petition was disposed of with a direction to complete the exercise as regards verification of the degree submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

(3.) However, no final decision was taken despite passage of time. The Department did not do well to keep the matter on hold till 2014 when the petitioner filed COCP No.3206 of 2014 during the pendency of which a status report was filed by the Department before the court. The degree relied on was found genuine but his candidature/appointment was cancelled for the reason that he was offered two opportunities to join after the verification process found the degree genuine but he failed to report for joining. He was informed that he could accept the offer within the joining time. The communication was sent through registered post. Moreover, information was supplied through special messenger sent to his residential address recorded in the application form. However, the residents at the address refused to receive the letter with saying that the petitioner can only himself receive the letter, in short they were not cooperative. That is how the offer was cancelled. When this picture was presented to the Court the contempt rule was discharged vide order dated April 28, 2015 and the petitioner was relegated to avail his remedy against the order dated April 10, 2015 cancelling his candidature.