Disposed

Santosh Kumari v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Nov 2009CWP/15025/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the petitioner's writ petition seeking appointment as Guest Faculty. It held that since the selection was cancelled, the petitioner had no right to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction but directed officials to consider a representation regarding the qualification of an existing appointee.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; officials directed to decide on a representation regarding the qualifications of respondent No. 4 within two months.

Santosh Kumari Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 15025 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 13, 2009

¶4

SANTOSH KUMARI

¶5

....... PETITIONER(S)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

¶8

.... RESPONDENT(S)

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶10

Mr. HC Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

¶12

This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to join as Guest Faculty Lecturer in Political Science in Government Kirti College, Nial-Patran, Patiala, on the basis of merit list dated 12.8.2009 (Annexure P- 2).

¶13

It has been pointed out that an advertisement was issued for walk-in interview for the post of Lecturers, including Guest Faculty, for

¶14

Civil Writ Petition No. 15025 of 2009

¶15

¶16

teaching Political Science. The petitioner appeared on 10.7.2009 before the Committee and produced the original certificates. The petitioner was selected at Sr.No.2 in the merit list for the post of Guest Faculty Lecturer in Political Science.

¶17

It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that she is eligible to be appointed in so much as she has passed NET examination in Political Science as well as obtained degree from University Grants Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that one Shri Darshan Lal was kept at Sr.No.1 in the merit list, for appointment to the post of Guest Faculty Lecturer in Political Science who, however, did not join. Under the circumstances, the petitioner was required to be invited for appointment.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, while drawing the attention of the Court towards para-6 of the written statement (on merits), states that the administration of the College in which the petitioner seeks employment, was not aware of order passed by this Court in CWP 7882 of 2004 (Rajvinder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab etc.) decided on 11.4.2005, wherein it has been held that a Guest Faculty Lecturer cannot be replaced by another person appointed in similar capacity. When the College became aware of the same, the result of the interview was cancelled. Shri Kulwinder Singh (respondent No.4) was already working as Guest Faculty Lecturer and has been allowed to continue in terms of the judgment rendered in Rajvinder Kaur's case (supra). It has been stated on behalf of the respondents that in such circumstances, the petitioner would have no right to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No. 15025 of 2009

¶20

¶21

Since the selection itself has been cancelled, right of the petitioner cannot be said to have been adversely affected. In such circumstances, the petitioner has no reason to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.

¶22

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The petitioner, however, would have the right to file a representation in regard to the allegation that private respondent No.4 (Shri Kulwinder Singh) has not passed NET and, therefore, could not have been appointed, even as Guest Faculty Lecturer. The official respondents are directed to take a decision on the representation (if filed) within two months of its filing, in accordance with law.

¶23

November 13, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE

¶24

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶25

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Santosh Kumari v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashmira Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sant Ram Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Khairati Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dalbara Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

V.K. Mujral Vs State of Punjab and Ors.