RAJ DEVINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied for admission to the Elementary Teachers Training (E.T.T.) Course for the Session 1996-98 in the District Institute of Education and Training, Punjab, against 2 per cent seats reserved for the dependants of teachers (serving/retired) category. She sat for the Entrance Test but respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were selected supposedly on the basis of their higher marks against the two seats reserved for the category. The petitioner thereafter applied for and obtained a detailed result card and found that she had obtained 132 marks. She accordingly filed a representation, Annexure P-5, before the respondents claiming that she was entitled to admission in preference to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, as she had secured higher marks in the Entrance Examination. On receiving no redress from the respondents, she has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued in this case and separate written statements have been filed on behalf of the respondents. A plea of laches has been raised. On merits, the stand of the petitioner has been controverted and it has been pointed out that in Column No. 5 of the application form the petitioner had clearly mentioned that she was married and, as such, she was no more dependent upon her mother who was a teacher. It has also been pleaded that once the candidate had applied against a particular category, the said category could not be changed at a later stage.

(3.) MR . Puneet Bali, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner continued to remain a ward of her mother even after her marriage and, as such, she could not be denied the benefit to the reserved seat. He has also pointed out that in the English version of the "Admission Notice" issued, the reservation was for wards of teachers (serving/retired) and the word "wards" would, therefore, have to be read as giving it a broad meaning.