RAJWANSH KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the petitions* tabulated at the foot of the order, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions which can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. Reference to individual facts is not found necessary in view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed to reconcile conflicting claims of four categories of petitioners and non-official respondents in the former's quest for appointments to public service as Physical Training Instructors [for short 'PTIs'] from an employment advertisement notified in the year 2006. The result of the selection was published on November 19, 2006. The merit list suffered three revisions as a result of litigation.

(2.) The first category is fighting for retention in service protected presently by stay orders passed by the Court in their favour following show cause notices of termination issued to them as a result of the judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court on February 5, 2010 in Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2010 4 RSJ 86 (for short 'Manjit Singh') to which reference will come later in this order. The second category appointed on redrawn merit as a result of court orders which have led to displacement of the first category. The third category which involves about 119 candidates who are waiting for appointment against unfilled vacancies as a result of the Full Bench. The fourth category trying to destroy the entire selection process by challenging it even though they were not applicants but have approached court for nullification of the direct recruitment drive to fill vacancies of PTIs in the education department of the Government basing their case on grounds of infringement of the equality and equal opportunity guarantees in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The selection process for filling posts of PTIs under the public advertisement dated 21st October, 2006 notifying 849 vacancies has not been challenged in any of 88 petitions, except by the last category, that is, the fourth who had not competed for the posts but have approached court after all the material events have transpired to nullify the entire selection by re-advertising the posts by throw open all the vacancies to open competition so as to enable them to avail right of consideration and all those who may have become eligible meanwhile in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of our Constitution.