Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amanveer Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057230
128 2023:PHHC:057230
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 8491 of 2023
Date of Decision: 24.04.2023
Amanveer Kaur and Others
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and Others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Parvesh K. Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab, for the respondents.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. While praying for the issuance of the writ in the nature of
certioari to quash the identical notices dated 06.04.2023 calling upon the
petitioners to show cause as to why their services shall not be terminated,
they have filed the present writ petition.
2. Pursuant to the recruitment notice issued on 28.02.2020, the
petitioners were appointed on the post of Punjabi Mistress in the month of
May, 2021. However, the various writ petitions were filed challenging the
correctness of the revised answer key. In Prabhjot Kaur and Others v. State
of Punjab and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 3639 of 2021, decided on
15.02.2023), the State was directed to examine the report of the Expert
Committee consisting of two members and thereafter, take an appropriate
decision within a period 15 days. Pursuant thereto, the result has been
revised and the petitioners have been issued the show cause notices as they
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057230
2023:PHHC:057230
are scored lower than the cut marks off as provided in the revised result.
3. The learned counsel representing the petitioners contends that
the show cause notices have been issued without issuing the final result. He
further submits that the petitioners have merely worked for a period of two
years. Hence, he while relying upon the judgment rendered in Rajwansh
Kaur v. State State of Punjab and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 7646 of
2010, decided on 30.05.2016), which was affirmed in the letters patent
appeal and another judgment passed in Amna Rani and Others v. State of
Punjab and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 25562 of 2018, decided on
14.10.2020), submits that the services of the petitioners should not have
been dispensed with particularly when a large number of vacancies are
available.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel, while entering
appearance, draws the attention of the Court to Clause 17 of the appointment
letter and submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed because the
final result has already been uploaded on the official website of the
department and it was specified in the appointment letter that the
appointment shall be subject to decision of the pending court cases.
5. This Court has carefully read the judgment passed in
Rajwansh Kaur's case (supra). In that case, the appointment letters were
issued in the year 2006, whereas, on revision of the result, the services were
sought to be terminated in the year 2010. On the interim orders granted, the
termination of services was stayed. The writ petition came up for final
disposal in the year 2016. By that time, the petitioners, in those writ
petitions, had served for a period of ten years. In these circumstances, a co-
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057230
2023:PHHC:057230
ordinate Bench took a view that dispensing with the services of the
employees after a period of ten years services would not be appropriate. This
view was upheld by the Division Bench.
6. The learned counsel representing the petitioners has also relied
upon the judgment rendered in Amna Rani's case (supra). In that case, the
State itself filed an affidavit to the effect that the services of the petitioners
would not be dispensed with. In view of the aforesaid stand of the State, the
writ petitions were disposed of.
7. In the humble opinion of this Court, the aforesaid two
judgments do not, as a ratio decidendi, lay down that once an appointment
has been given, the same cannot be cancelled even if it is subsequently
found that the appointment letters have been issued to the candidates who
have scored marks lower than the cut off marks.
8. The learned counsel representing the petitioners further relies
upon the judgment rendered in Vikas Pratap Singh and Others v. State of
Chhattisgarh and Others 2013 AIR (Supreme Court) 3414. This Court has
carefully read the aforesaid judgment. In that case, the appointments were
made in the year 2008. The matter came up before the Court in the year
2013. Taking a sympathetic view, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, protected their
services.
9. Clause 17 of the appointment letter reads as under:-
"17) The decision of the court cases pending in various courts
relating to this appointment shall be applicable to this
appointment."
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057230
2023:PHHC:057230
10. Thus, it is evident that the petitioners were aware of the
pendency of the court case. Moreover, the petitioners are currently in the
probationary period.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid peculiar facts, no case is made
out to issue the writ. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
April 24, 2023
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057230
4 of 4
