KARAN JAGDISH KAUR Vs. PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Order will dispose of three writ petitions 10575, 14658 and 18271 of 1995 challenging the appointment of Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur (Respondent 3) as Legal Advisor to the Punjab School Education Board, Mohali (for short, the Board) on the ground that it has been made on extraneous consideration violating the provisions of the regulations governing the appointment. To dispose of the common questions of law and fact arising in these petitions, facts have been taken from CWP 10575 of 1995.

(2.) FINANCE Committee of the Board in its meeting held on March 22, 1995 recommended up gradation of the vacant post of the Legal Advisor in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3500 to the pay scale of Rs. 2400-4000 plus Rs. 200/- as special pay. This Committee also suggested appointment to the aforesaid post either by way of direct recruitment or by way of deputation and the following qualifications were recommended:-

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition have been controverted. It is placed that soon after the post of Legal Advisor was upgraded, the petitioner's father S. Basant Singh Khalsa, Ex- Education Minister, Punjab repeatedly spoke to the Chairman of the Board as also to its Secretary asking them to make provision for filling up the post only by way of promotion from the post of Assistant Attorney Grade-II which is the solitary post in the Board and against which the petitioner was working. It is further pleaded that the suggestion as made by the father of the petitioner was declined by the Chairman as also by the Secretary in view of the decision of the Board. It is also stated that father of the petitioner repeatedly threatened the Chairman of the Board as also its Secretary and wanted them to offer the post to the petitioner by way of promotion and in case they did not promote the petitioner, he, (father of the petitioner) on assuming political position would deal with the Chairman. It was also pleaded by way of preliminary objections that since it has been alleged that Respondent 3 had been appointed at the behest and on the asking of the then Chief Minister of Punjab, the latter was not impleaded as a party though he was alive when the writ petition was filed. On merits, it has been stated that the petitioner represented that the post be filled up by promotion and that her representation was duly considered but the Board did not find any justification to change its decision for making the appointment by direct recruit ment and through advertisement. The peti tioner too had applied for the post and was one of the candidates along with many others. All the applicants were sent a notice to appear for 5 the interview on June 28, 1995 at 11 A. M. No tices are stated to have been sent under certifi cate of posting to all the candidates including the petitioner and it is averred that the petitioner did not choose to appear for the interview though she was present at the venue when her name was called. It is further stated that had she appeared, she would have been considered on her own merits. The allegations that Respondent 3 as been selected at the behest of the then Chief Minister of Punjab has been specifically denied and the other allegations made in the petition have also been controverted. The Chairman of the Board has also filed a short affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition. He has reaffirmed the contents of the written statement filed by Respondent 1. He has specifically stated that what is said in paragraphs 22 and 3 of the preliminary submissions and the similar submissions made in the preliminary objection 2 1 are correct. It may be mentioned that these submissions pertain to the averments regarding the Chairman being threatened by the father of the petitioner as referred to in the earlier part of the order.