VEERPAL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash appointment given to respondent No. 5 on the post of Lecturer in Humanities and Management with respondent No. 4 and also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, seeking a direction to respondent No. 4 to offer appointment to the petitioner to the aforesaid post instead of respondent No. 5 in accordance with rules and regulation as the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No. 5.

(2.) Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Regional Engineering College, Jalandhar, advertised certain posts of Professors, Assistant Professors & Lecturers including one post of Lecturer in English of General Category and one post of Humanities and Management of General Category for Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering & Technology, Bathinda. As per the advertisement, essential qualification and experience was required as per norms of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

(3.) The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Humanities Group and submitted her application form on 13.7.2001 to respondent No. 4. After formal scrutiny by the committee, five candidates were short-listed and were called for interview including the petitioner. The petitioner had appeared for interview on 23.8.2001., but result was not declared. However, one Suman Bala, who was the Personal Assistant to the then Principal of the College was given the appointment letter for the post of Lecturer in Humanities Group without declaring any result. According to the petitioner, a criteria was laid down for awarding one mark for each year of relevant experience in Engineering Colleges/ University/ R&D Organizations/ Public Sector Industry/ Public Ltd. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Co. The petitioner had submitted certificates with her application form from the year 1996 till 13.7.2001 showing her experience and qualifications and alleged that the petitioner had been given 35.05 marks for basic qualification, 4 marks for experience and 8 marks for interview. In this manner, her total merit was assessed at 47.05 marks, although it was claimed that the marks for basic qualification should have been awarded at 35.20 instead of 35.05. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 5 has been awarded 47.10 marks. Whereas, had the petitioner been awarded 35. 20 marks for the basic qualification instead of 35.05 marks, she would have got total of 47.20 marks instead of 47.05 marks and in that eventuality, she would have more marks than respondent No. 5 and would have got the appointment. It was also pleaded that selection of Suman Bala was challenged both by the petitioner and respondent No. 5, who filed two separate Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 5660 of 2005 and 3859 of 2003, which were allowed on 20.11.2006 by a Division Bench of this Court and the appointment of Suman Bala was quashed on the ground that as per Bye Law 3.3 of the Engineering College, the experience referred to in the application form pertains to teaching experience only. Therefore, the marks awarded to Suman Bala towards experience which were not referable to her teaching were deducted and her appointment was quashed. However, it was ordered by the Division bench that Engineering College shall now proceed to issue fresh offer of appointment in favour of most meritorious candidates out of the remaining candidates (after excluding Jagwinder Singh and Jyoti Kumar Chandel) in terms of process of selection conducted by it on 23.8.2001.