ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 09.05.2013 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Director Public Instructions Secondary Education, Punjab, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Vocational Master (Computer Science) in the general category has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner passed his Bachelor of Arts examination in April 1999 and was awarded regular 3 years Diploma in Computer Engineering by the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training. The petitioner also has the experience of working as Computer Teacher since 1997. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 23.09.2009, the petitioner applied in the general category for appointment on the post of Vocational Master/Mistress (Computer Science). The eligibility as specified in the advertisement was that the candidate should have 3 years diploma in Computer Science/Education issued by the State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training and 3 years experience from any government or government aided or government registered institution or practical work experience, duly countersigned by the competent authority. The selection was based purely on inter-se merit of the candidates to be determined on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and weightage to be given for the higher education and experience. The petitioner participated in the selection process and obtained 60.8637% marks. He was called for counselling and his documents were scrutinized. However, the persons lower in merit were offered appointment ignoring the candidature of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Department concerned by filing a representation dated 25.11.2011. Since no action was taken thereon, he approached this court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No. 19624 of 2012, which was disposed of by this court on 03.10.2012, directing the respondents to consider his claim and by order dated 09.05.2013, claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Vocational Master was declined. Aggrieved against the said rejection the instant writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Puneet Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and violation of the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. It is argued that respondent No. 2 had rejected his candidature on the ground that the petitioner did not produce his original detailed marks sheet at the time of counselling. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner urges that there was no such stipulation either in the advertisement or in the scrutiny form which would indicate that detailed mark sheets had to be submitted at the time of counselling.