YASHVIR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Yashvir Kumar through present petition filed by him under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash Annexure P-4 dated 16.9.1997 by styling the same to be without justification and also contrary to the declared policy of the State. He also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to accord necessary approval to his appointment on the post of P.T.I.

(2.) The facts on which the relief referred to above has been asked for need a mention. Respondent No. 4 advertised one post of PTI on 1.8.1997. Pursuant to advertisement referred to above, petitioner applied for the post. His case is that he was called for interview on 16.8.1997 and once again on 26.8.1997. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3, District Education Officer was present in the interview committee being its member. In the interview referred to above, petitioner was selected to the post of PTI and accordingly appointment letter was issued to him. However, when his case was sent for approval on 16.9.1997, respondent No. 3 while mentioning in his letter that inasmuch as the petitioner possesses higher qualifications than the one advertised, no approval to the appointment could be given. The petitioner brought to the notice instructions of the Punjab Government wherein it is mentioned that when persons with the eligible criteria are not available, other persons having higher qualifications can be selected. In support of his claim, the petitioner also cited a judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5386 of 1997 decided on 14.1.1998. Meanwhile the petitioner had been continuously taking classes in the school but no salary was paid to him till 18.9.1997.

(3.) Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the respondents entered defence and contested the claim of the petitioner. Two separate written statements, one on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and the other by respondent No. 4 have been filed. It is common case of the respondents that the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification even though he possessed C.P.Ed which is higher qualification than the one prescribed while issuing advertisement. The relevant part of the advertisement reproduced in para 2 of the petition reads as under :-