DARSHAN KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Education Department of the State of Punjab through its Selection Committee issued advertisement dated 2.4.2000 (Annexure P-8) inviting application for JBT teachers. As many as 7230 posts of JBT teachers were notified for selection. Out of these, 104 vacancies were for the Scheduled Castes. The minimum qualification for the post was Matriculation/10+2. It was, however, notified that the candidates with BA/B.Sc./B.Com./M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. who have passed B.Ed. examination can also apply. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste (Ramdasia) and is a Post-Graduate with B.Ed. She also applied for the said post. She was allotted Roll No. 15000150742 and was called for interview to be held on 23.7.2001.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that when she was waiting for the result, the petitioner received notice from the High Court for appearance in CWP No. 12466 of 2002 (Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab) which was fixed for hearing on 25.5.2006. It is stated that on receipt of the copy of aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner came to know that she is one of the respondents in the writ petition, being a selected candidate and her selection alongwith others has been challenged in the writ petition. The petitioner's merit was at 7th, out of the 52 female candidates. The challenge in the writ petition was that as against 12 vacancies for female, the respondents selected 52 candidates. On coming to know of her selection, the petitioner served a legal notice (Annexure P-11). On receipt of legal notice, the Director Punjab Instruction (Elementary Education), Punjab sought instructions from the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Education Department whether this candidate is to be issued appointment letter, in view of her selection under the Scheduled Caste Category. The Depute Director (Administration) vide his communication dated 8.12.2004 (Annexure P-13) also informed the Government through Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Education Department that the petitioner was selected as JBT/ETT teacher and could not be issued appointment letter due to imposition of Model Code of Conduct for election and he sought approval for issuing the appointment letter. A further communication dated It. 11.1.2005 (Annexure P-14) was issued by the Office of Director, Public Instructions (Elementary Education), Punjab seeking approval of the Government for issuing the appointment letter. The District Education Officer, Patiala again gave information to the Government vide letter dated 18.5.2005 and gave the list of appointees and it was also pointed out that the petitioner is one of the selected candidates, but due to non-availability of her residential address and imposition of Model Code of Conduct for election, her certificates could not be checked. Merit of the petitioner was also indicated. Even then the respondents have not issued the appointment letter and hence the petitioner approached this Court.

(3.) The respondent-State has defended its action on the ground that the petitioner did not approach with the original certificates even though select list of the candidates was displayed at the notice board. It is further stated that the petitioner did not complete the requisite form giving their residential address and thus she could not be given appointment. During the course of the pendency of this writ petition, vide inter-locutory order dated 22.8.2008, the respondents were directed to file an affidavit to show as to in what manner, the selected candidates were intimated regarding declaration of result. In response to the aforesaid order, an affidavit dated 6.1.2009 has been filed through Harvinder Kaur, District Education Office (E.E.) Patiala. Relevant paragraph of the affidavit reads as under :