PARDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order/report dated 18.11.2013 which has been conveyed to the petitioner vide endorsement dated 20.03.2014 (Annexure P-20) and order dated 23.8.2010 (Annexure P-15), whereby, the claim of the petitioner for his reinstatement in service has been declined and thereafter, order of termination has been passed on 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-11).

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that an advertisement dated 05.09.2007 was published in the daily newspaper 'Ajit' for recruitment of 9998 ETT Teachers (Teaching Fellows) in the State of Punjab. Out of said posts, 600 posts were meant for District Tarn Taran. Petitioner being eligible, applied for the post under the category of Ex-Serviceman. Thereafter, as per criteria, the merit was prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the educational qualification and experience. Additional marks were also earmarked for rural area and for the period after passing B.Ed. Examination. After considering the respective merit, the petitioner was selected in the category of ex-serviceman and thereafter, he was also appointed. However, vide order dated 22.10.2009, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that his experience certificate was found to be bogus. Said order dated 22.10.2009 was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing CWP No.16587 of 2009 and while issuing notice of motion, the operation of impugned order was stayed. Ultimately, the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.11.2009 on the basis of statement made by learned State counsel that a Committee has been constituted and the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the issue before the said Committee. A direction was also issued for passing a speaking order after considering the material evidence to be produced by the petitioner in support of his claim. Petitioner appeared before the Committee and produced all documents relevant for the case but the claim of the petitioner was not decided in terms of the order passed by this Court. Thereafter, he along with some others filed CWP No.9250 of 2010 seeking reinstatement in service by excluding their marks give for the alleged disputed experience. Said petition was also disposed of vide order dated 19.05.2010 with the observation that the petitioner may represent the authorities along with material in support of their plea, if any. Thereafter, order dated 23.08.2010 was passed in pursuance of directions issued on 10.11.2009 and the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Petitioner also made a representation stating therein that two other similarly situated employees, namely, Harmanjit Kaur and Kuljit Singh were also working with him in the same school and they were issued experience certificate by the same Management. On the basis of said representation, a direction was issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 to conduct re-verification of the experience certificate of the petitioner along with two other candidates from his district and submit the report. The District Education Officer (EE), Tarn Taran vide his office letter dated 27.05.2013 submitted his enquiry/verification report, wherein it was found that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner was for the period from 01.11.2004 to 30.04.2005 and the same was genuine. Petitioner was awarded 0.5 marks for the experience and after deducting his marks of experience, the total marks came to 50.561 whereas the last candidate selected in that category was having 37.536 marks. Thereafter, order dated 18.11.2013 was passed without considering the claim of the petitioner of excluding his 0.5 marks for the alleged disputed experience certificate from his merit.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of termination dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-11), rejection orders dated 23.08.2010 and 18.11.2013, the present petition has been filed for quashing of said orders by raising various grounds.