Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kavita Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 December, 2023
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
2023:PHHC:153465
CWP-27044-2023
Date of Decision: 02.12.2023
Kavita Sandhu ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Risham Raag Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
2 2 3
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition stating that she
was appointed as Mistress Math in the open selection conducted in the year
2014, showing her merit marks as 47.1667, under SC Ex-Servicemen
Dependent (R&O) quota.
2. Having been selected, the petitioner joined and allotted place of
posting and has been serving with the department. When the seniority list
was being prepared, the petitioner pointed out that her merit was wrongly
prepared and she was required to be given '6' more marks as she had done
M.A. (Economics) and the certificate of M.A. (Economics) had been attached
with her original application form and the action of the respondents in not
awarding those '6' marks has resulted in lowering her merit and thus, she was
entitled to be treated higher in the merit list by enhancing her overall marks
from 47.1667 to 53.1667, by adding '6' more marks for her higher education
in M.A. (Economics). However, the respondents have not acted upon her
representation and her grievance is relating to her placement in the seniority
| attest to the accuracy and authenticity
idgment, Punjab &
Court, Chandigarh.
RAJESH KUMAR
2023.12.04 15:23
CWP-27044-2023 2023:PHHC: 153465
list by awarding '6' more marks but the same has not been redressed by the
respondents.
3. A tentative seniority list has already been published by the
respondents, whereafter, the petitioner has already submitted her
representation to which the respondents have yet to take a final decision.
However, the petitioner has approached this Court before a final decision
could be taken on her representation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner presses for decision on merit.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to
withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue with the department.
However, this Court finds that there would be no purpose in giving the matter
further to the department. In fact that the respondent-State has no authority in
law to change the merit position of the petitioner once her merit position was
fixed in the select list at the time of appointment and the petitioner joined
without any demur and without challenging the said merit list at that relevant
time. Merely because the seniority list is going to be published finally on
account of certain delays, cause of action does not arise for the petitioner to
rake up an issue relating to her wrongful merit at the time of initial selection
done in the year 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
principal has already sent the form of the petitioner where her certificate had
been attached at the time of scrutiny. However, this Court finds that the
respondents cannot be allowed to change the merit position of the petitioner
after almost 10 years as it has a cascading effect not on the merit list but
would also effect those who are not before the Court or before the
department.
| attest to the accuracy and authenticity
of this order/|
Haryana Hig
h
idgment, Punjab &
Court, Chandigarh.
CWP-27044-2023 2023:PHHC: 153465
6. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and same is
dismissed accordingly.
7. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
02.12.2023
rajesh
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No
RAJESH KUMAR
2023.12.04 15:23
| attest to the accuracy and authenticity
of this order/judgment, Punjab &
Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
