BALWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 27.6.2012 (Annexure P-5), whereby the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment to the post of Teaching Fellow against the reserved B.C category pertaining to Ropar District, has been declined.

(2.) Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the basis of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is that the Backward Caste Certificate furnished by her was not considered valid as per terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 5.9.2007 in response to which she had applied for the post. In the impugned order it has also been stated that there was no reservation provided for candidates belonging to B.C. (Sports) Category and that the petitioner while claiming to be a B.C category candidate cannot claim appointment against B.C. (Ex-service man) category.

(3.) Counsel representing the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.1285 of 2011 claiming appointment to the post of Teaching Fellow in response to the advertisement dated 5.9.2007 and which had been disposed of on 10.5.2011 in the following terms:- "PERMOD KOHLI, J (ORAL) Learned State counsel submits that posts under the B.C Ex-servicemen and B.C Sports quota are lying vacant and the petitioner's claim can be considered under these posts. In view of the above statement this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner under the aforementioned categories within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the consequential order be passed within a period of two months thereafter. Sd/- (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE" It is contended that inspite of the clear directions issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, claim of the petitioner has been declined and as such, the impugned order virtually amounts to contempt. In the same limb it is contended that the order dated 10.5.2011 was passed by this Court in view of a statement given by counsel representing the State and under such circumstances it was not open for the appropriate authority under the concerned State Govt. to have resiled from a stand taken before this Court and the State was bound by a concession duly recorded. As regards the Caste Certificate furnished by the petitioner being not valid as per terms and conditions of the advertisement, counsel argues that furnishing of a valid certificate claiming benefit of reservation stipulated in the advertisement would be within the domain of procedure. It is urged that procedural provisions are always open to be relaxed and every infraction of a condition relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of the candidature. Counsel has also placed reliance upon a judgement dated 15.2.2013, passed by this Court in CWP No.14796 of 2011 (Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others) to buttress his claim.