MEENU BHATTI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the orders dated 20.01.2015 and 30.11.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWP-18387-2010.

(2.) Briefly stated, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 12.06.2006 got published by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab (for short 'the Board'), inviting applications for appointment of teachers in various subjects including Punjabi Masters (insensitively described as Mistress) in the Punjab State Education Class III (School Cadre) Service, the appellant had applied for the post of Punjabi Teacher/Master and was selected vide order No. 2/80-2006-Estt-2 (4,5,6) dated 07.12.2006. Consequently, she was given appointment as Punjabi Masters (Mistress) on 21.12.2006. In the advertisement, there was a specific condition that the candidate who applied for the said post should have Punjabi either as a compulsory or elective subject in graduation course. However, on discovery that the appellant was not having Punjabi as an elective subject, her services were dispensed with w.e.f. 28.12.2006 i.e. barely a week after her joining. Thereafter, the appellant had approached this Court and filed and during the pendency of the same, the respondents took a conscious decision to permit all the candidates who were having Punjabi either as a compulsory or as elective subject during the graduation. Resultantly, in view of the above decision, the appellant was also given an offer to join which she accepted and the writ petition was disposed of as having become in-fructuous vide order dated 06.02.2008. The appellant after getting her assignment back got all service benefits except monetary consequences relating to pay which she claimed by way of w.e.f. 21.12.2006 i.e. the date on which she was initially appointed. On 20.01.2015, when the said writ petition was listed for hearing, no one had appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, the learned Single Judge, after going through the records dismissed the same on merits. Consequently, the appellant had filed CM Nos. 15161-63-2015, after a delay of 238 days for recalling the order dated 20.01.2015. The application for condonation of delay of 238 days in filing was allowed. However, the application for recalling the order dated 20.01.2015 was declined by the learned Single Judge, on the ground that sufficient reasons were given for dismissing the main petition.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, after considering the claim of the appellant has observed that the appellant did not work during the period from 21.12.2006 till she was re-appointed as she was not entitled to appointment because of deficiency in qualification of Punjabi as an elective subject in graduation course but, thereafter, decision of the respondents to relax such condition and applying it across the Board was taken of which the appellant was beneficiary. Such a beneficial decision taken by the respondents entitling the appellant to join the service which she might not have otherwise got, cannot justifiably result in acceptance of the prayer of the appellant of the monetary consequences for the period during which she did not work. It has also been observed by the learned Single Judge, that according to learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, on instructions from Law Officer of the office of District Education Officer, Jalandhar, the appellant had been paid the salary for the period during which she worked and had also been given the benefits of seniority etc.