Dismissed

Harjot Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2008CWP/19165/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a welfare challenge by a teacher whose services were terminated after a higher meritorious candidate was wrongly ignored due to an administrative mistake. The court held that the department could not perpetuate an error and found no ground to interfere with the termination order, though it declined to issue specific directions regarding the petitioner's future employment.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. The Court directed the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents regarding future employment if he wishes.

Harjot Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CWP No.19165 of 2006 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CWP No.19165 of 2006 Date of decision: 05.09.2008

Harjot Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶11

Rajan Gupta, J.

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that vide order dated 17^th November, 2006, services of the petitioner have been dispensed with to accommodate respondent No.4. Thus, the petitioner has lost his job as Art & Craft Teacher in the Education Department (Senior Secondary), Punjab.

¶13

The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that on 28^th March, 2001, a public notice was issued inviting applications for various posts including the post of Art and Craft Teachers (male and female). Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied in the sports category. Interviews were conducted from 5^th November, 2001 to 10^th November, 2001. The final selection list was ultimately published

¶14

CWP No.19165 of 2006 2

¶15

on 3^rd December, 2001, in which the petitioner was shown to have been selected in the sports category. On 21^st December, 2001, the petitioner was issued the appointment letter, in pursuance whereof he joined the service on 26^th December, 2001. On 6^th February, 2002, respondent No.4 i.e. Gurpreet Singh submitted a representation showing that he had been wrongly ignored in the said selection. His claim was rejected by the Chairperson of the Departmental Selection Committee on the ground that he had not appeared in the interview in the sports category. However, on 6^th September, 2002 the Coordinator of Departmental Selection Committee wrote to Principal Secretary, Punjab Government, Education Department, Chandigarh that respondent No.4 had been mistakenly considered in General category though he was to be considered in the Sports (General) category. Thus, respondent no.4 was liable to be selected against the post in question. The relevant part of this letter, which is Annexure P-6 annexed to the petition, reads thus:

¶16

“This candidate filed a Civil Writ Petition No.20019 of 2001 in Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The decision of which was made on 21.12.2001 by Hon'ble High court and ordered that case of petitioner by considering as per law, speaking orders be made within one month of receipt of the order. According to these orders the concerned Chairperson Smt. Harjit Kaur Gill issued speaking orders on 14.03.2002 without showing to this department in which she dismissed the claim of the petitioner by considering him as candidate for general category when the copy of speaking orders issued by the Chairperson in the office of undersigned, then it was looked

¶17

CWP No.19165 of 2006 3

¶18

into on the basis of record. During inquiry by keeping court orders in view the deeply considering, it came to notice that the claim of this candidate of considering as Sports (General) candidate is valid, when undersigned looked at the record then this fact came forward that the merit of last candidate selected for sports (general) category is 47.53 when the merit of this candidate is 50.30. Like this his number comes at merit no.2 in the list of selected candidates.”

¶19

Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed another writ petition before this court bearing CWP No.5338 of 2003 titled “Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab” claiming appointment to the post of Art and Craft Teacher on the ground that he was higher in merit than the petitioner i.e. Harjot Singh and he had been wrongly ignored for the said post. The said writ petition was disposed of on 7^th December, 2005 and following order was passed in the same:-

¶20

“Mr. Onkar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner would be satisfied if he is considered in the light of the recommendation by the Coordinator to the Principal Secretary (Annexure P-11) direction direction is issued in the above terms. The coordinator or any other person who is competent to do so may take the decision as per law within a period of two months from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to him.”

¶21

Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 22^nd August, 2006

¶22

(Annexure P-7) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the same on 16^th October, 2006 saying that he had been duly selected

¶23

CWP No.19165 of 2006 4

¶24

by the selection committee and thus his services may not be dispensed with. However, vide order dated 17^th November, 2006 (Annexure P-11), respondent No.2 i.e. the Director Education, Senior Secondary Punjab decided to terminate the services of the petitioner as his merit position was lower then that of respondent No.4 Gurpreet Singh.

¶25

Reply has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been stated that due to an inadvertent mistake while feeding particulars in the computer, the Roll Number in sports category could not be issued to respondent No.4. This is despite the fact that respondent No.4 had applied separately in General as well as Sports (General) category for the post of Art & Craft teacher. Had the correct particulars been fed in the computer, respondent No.4 would definitely have been selected at the very initial stage as he had secured 50.30 marks whereas the petitioner had secured 47.43 marks. The respondents have also stated that had this inadvertent mistake not occurred, respondent No.4 would have been selected at the outset instead of the petitioner. The answering respondents, therefore, had no option but to terminate the services of the petitioner as continuation thereof would exceed the number of posts advertised, which was not permissible under the law.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through record.

¶27

A perusal of the record shows that immediately, after the result was declared, respondent No.4 i.e. Gurpreet Singh approached this court without any delay and filed Civil Writ Petition No.20019 of

¶28

CWP No.19165 of 2006 5

¶29

2001 which was disposed of on 21^st December, 2001 with the following order:-

¶30

“We have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. The grievance raised in this petition is to be dealt with by the concerned authorities. If so advised, the petitioner may file a representation. If such representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law within one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

Sd/- Amar Bir Singh Gill, Judge

¶32

Sd/- Swatantar Kumar, Judge”

¶33

It is thereafter that the Coordinator of the Selection Committee looked up the record and detected the mistake and wrote a letter (Annexure P-6) to the Principal Secretary, Punjab Government, Education Department, Chandigarh, intimating that respondent no.4 had secured more marks than the petitioner and had been wrongly ignored from consideration in Sports (General) category. The relevant para from this letter has been reproduced above.

¶34

Thereafter, respondent No.4 preferred another writ petition i.e. CWP No.5338 of 2003, pursuant to which show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. His services were ultimately terminated as he had been wrongly selected.

¶35

It is, thus, obvious that it is only due to an inadvertent mistake committed by the selection committee that the petitioner came to be selected and appointed on the post of Art & Craft teacher. Once the mistake had been detected, it was not possible for the official

¶36

CWP No.19165 of 2006 6

¶37

respondents to perpetuate the same. The consequent action had to follow. The department was left with no option but to correct the mistake and take remedial measures. Thus, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner had nothing much to say except that he had been duly selected and worked for a considerable period and keeping his family circumstances in view, his service may not be discontinued. Moreover, he had not misstated or misrepresented any facts before the selection committee.

¶38

However, we find that on such pleas of the petitioner it was not possible for the official respondents to retain him in service as it was amply clear on record that he had been wrongly selected due to an inadvertent technical mistake. The answering respondents have also stated in their reply before us that in case the service of the petitioner had been continued, that would lead to selection in excess of the posts advertised, which was not permissible.

¶39

This apart, the record clearly shows that respondent No.4 was not sleeping over his rights. He immediately, approached the court in the year 2001 itself when the selection was made. His writ petition was disposed of on 21^st December, 2001 and the mistake was detected, as is evident from the communication dated 6^th September, 2002 (Annexure P-6), addressed by the Coordinator, Departmental Selection Committee, Punjab to the Principal Secretary, Punjab Government, Education Department. Even thereafter, the petitioner preferred CWP No.5338 of 2003 with a prayer that he being higher in merit, deserved to

¶40

CWP No.19165 of 2006 7

¶41

be appointed on the post of Art & Craft teacher in Sports (General) category.

¶42

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders (Annexure P-7 & P-11) whereby show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and order of termination was passed. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶43

However, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has rendered almost 7 years of service by now and he has suffered because of the mistake committed by the respondents, about which he never knew. The respondents took more than 5 years to rectify the mistake. By now the petitioner is overage and, therefore, cannot apply for any other post. Thus, he may be retained in service.

¶44

However, no direction in this regard can be issued by this court. The petitioner, if so advised, may make a representation in this regard to the respondents.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE

¶47

September 05, 2008. 'rajpal'

Harjot Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjot Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardeep Blaggan Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hari Krishen Vs the Principal Secretary to Punjab Govt. and Ors.

Sukhwinder Kaur Vs Official Liquidator and Ors.

Rupinder Kaur Vs State Ofpb. and Ors.

Shamsher Singh Antall Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kuldip Singh Vs F C I and Ors.