RAJNI KANG Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition has been filed on the following prayers: -

(2.) IN reply, the respondents have taken the following stand by way of preliminary submissions: - 1. That the respondents have not done any injustice to the petitioner while considering her for appointment to the post of JBT. The 194 candidates, which also includes the petitioner, trained from 04 Private Institutes, had been selected for two years JBT Training on the basis of a State level merit prepared by the H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala, District Kangra, which conducted the competitive examination. Since these candidates were admitted to the said training from State level merit, the respondent -State has now prepared a State level category -wise merit list of these 194 candidates on the basis of marks obtained by them in the two years JBT training and reservation roster of the respective districts was also taken into consideration. There were 31 posts allocated to District Kangra, out of which only 05 seats were for the OBC General category. These 05 posts were allotted to the candidates, placed higher in the merit to the petitioner. The petitioner was placed at serial number 19 in the merit list of OBC General category and no post of this category was left in Kangra District, therefore, the petitioner could not be allotted Kangra District. The petitioner has been allotted Chamba District because in this district post of OBC General Category was available. A complete transparency was maintained in allocation of districts to the candidates by adopting the procedure approved by the Government vide their letter No. EDN -C.B (2)/2006 -II, dated 5.4.2010. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure R -1. It is further submitted that the Government has 1% quota policy for those teachers who want to get transferred from one district to another district. The petitioner may apply for inter district transfer under 1% quota policy, by adopting proper procedure as laid down by the Government so that the case may be considered under policy.

(3.) IN view of the above, if on facts the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove in CWP No. 7667 of 2011, Amit Thakur versus State of H.P. & others and the connected matters and the same has attained finality and has been implemented and the petitioner is similarly situate, she shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment along with consequential benefits, if any, shall be extended to her within two weeks from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the respondents/competent authority.