Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amanbir Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 1 May, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061827
CWP No. 20803 of 2015(O&M) 2023:PHHC:061827
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 20803 of 2015(O&M)
Date of Order:01.05.2023
Amanbir Kaur .Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents
CWP-6424 of 2023 (O&M)
Rekha Sharma .Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate
for the petitioner (n CWP-20803 of 2015).
Mr. R.D.Bawa, Advocate,
Mr. Randhir Bawa, Advocate and
Mr. Dipanshu Kapur, Advocate
for the petitioner( in CWP-6424 of 2023)
for respondent no.4 (in CWP-20803 of 2015).
Mr. Vishnav Gandhi, DAG, Punjab
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Two connected writ petitions have come up for final disposal.
This is the second round of writ petitions in Civil Writ Petition 20803 of
2015. In order to comprehend the controversy involved, it would be
appropriate to notice the relevant facts, in brief:-
A recruitment notice was issued by the Punjab State
Subordinate Services Selection Board on 10.12.2006 for the post of teachers
in various subjects including 65 posts of Sewing Teachers. The selection
was based on the basis of the merit list prepared after evaluating the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061827
CWP No. 20803 of 2015(O&M) 2023:PHHC:061827
academic qualifications. The petitioner was not selected. She filed a Civil
Writ Petition No.9622 of 2011 in the High Court which was allowed on
07.01.2013 with the following observations:-
"The impugned order dated 28.03.2011 (Annexure
P-19) is hereby quashed and direction is issued to
respondent-Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board
to reconsider the claim of the petitioners for selection
made in pursuance to the advertisement dated
11.12.2006 (Annexure P-1) along with the other similarly
placed candidates, recast the merit list and make
appropriate recommendations to the Government against
the post advertised of Sewing Mistress. This exercise be
completed within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order."
2. The LPA No.1115 of 2013 filed by the State was dismissed as
not pressed on 24.04.2015 with the following observations:-
"He states that the Subordinate Services Selection Board
has genuine difficulty in implementing the directions of
the learned Single Judge. He states that as per the
Board's understanding of the order, they are required to
interview all the candidates afresh. This opinion is
baseless. The direction is not to interview the candidates
afresh. The directions were given to the Board to
reconsider the claim of the writ petitioners along with
other similarly placed candidates and recast the merit,
after deleting the names of 11 selected candidates, who
were found to be ineligible, and make appropriate
recommendation to the Government. The said exercise
be undertaken by the Board.
In view of the said clarification, learned counsel
for the State-appellant does not want to press this appeal.
Dismissed as not pressed."
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061827
CWP No. 20803 of 2015(O&M) 2023:PHHC:061827
3. Thereafter, the Selection Board issued a public notice calling
the candidates including the petitioner, who had applied for the post of
Sewing Teacher (Female) under the general category to be present in the
office of the Selection Board along with the documentary evidence for the
consideration of their claims within the period from 22.07.2015 to
24.07.2015. It was specifically noted that in case any candidate does not
produce any documentary evidence upto the aforesaid dates, then he/she will
have no claim for the post of Sewing Teacher (Female). Admittedly, the
petitioner did not attend the office of the Selection Board along with the
documentary evidence between 22.07.2015 and 24.07.2015.
4. Subsequently, a public notice was issued on 17.09.2015
intimating that there are 18 posts of Sewing Teacher (Female) under the
general category which remained vacant and the candidates who had
appeared before the Selection Board between 22.07.2015 and 24.07.2015
should again bring their original documents of educational and technical
qualification on 30.09.2015.
5. Civil Writ Petition N.20803 of 2015 was filed challenging the
correctness of the public notice dated 17.09.2015. It is the case of the
petitioner that on account of illness she could not attend the office of the
Selection Board between 22.07.2015 to 24.07.2015.
6. Heard the learned counsels representing the parties at length
and with their able assistance perused the paper books.
7. It has been nearly 16½ years when the recruitment notice was
issued. In the first round of the litigation, the court had only directed the
Selection Board to reconsider the claim of the petitioners and recast the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061827
CWP No. 20803 of 2015(O&M) 2023:PHHC:061827
merit list. The Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the aforesaid judgment
was withdrawn as not pressed. In order to recast the merit list, the Selection
Board issued a public notice calling upon the candidates to produce the
documents. It is the stand of the respondent-Board that the petitioner could
have deputed a representative to produce the documents. In such situation,
the question is "whether the court should now compel the State Government
to recruit the petitioner only because she has secured more marks than the
last selected candidate?"
8. It may be noted here that the learned counsel representing the
State of Punjab submits that the posts of Sewing Teachers have been
abolished. In the opinion of the Court, much water has gone down the drain.
At this stage, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner particularly
when she failed to attend the office of the Selection Board between
22.07.2015 and 24.07.2015. The contention of the learned counsel
representing the petitioner that there was no necessity of fresh counselling in
the absence of directions by the Court, has no substance because in order to
prepare the merit list, the Selection Board is required to examine and verify
the correctness of the claim made by the candidates.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to issue the writ
as prayed for is made out.
10. Dismissed.
11. The learned counsel representing the petitioner further submits
that pursuant to an interim order passed by the Court, the petitioner was
permitted to attend the counselling but the government is now refusing the
aforesaid ground.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061827
CWP No. 20803 of 2015(O&M) 2023:PHHC:061827
12. In Civil Writ Petition No.6424 of 2023, the learned counsel
representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was at Sr. No.21 in the
merit list, whereas the candidates upto Sr. No.20 have been appointed.
13. After a passage of more than 16 years, particularly in view of
the stand of the respondent-State that the posts have been abolished, no
further order is required to be passed.
14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
May 01, 2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061827
5 of 5
