Allowed

Anu Sharma v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2011CWP/13041/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a writ petition. The petitioner, a candidate in the reserved category for Wards of Freedom Fighters, sought appointment to the post of ETT. Applying the principle that reserved category candidates with higher merit than open category appointees must be treated as open category candidates, the Court held the petitioner was entitled to the resultant vacan

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to be appointed as ETT Teacher from the date other selected candidates were given appointment, with all consequential benefits within two months.

Anu Sharma Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.13041 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.02.2011

Anu Sharma

VS.

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶8

. . . . Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶11

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Present: Mr. MS Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner

¶17

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab

¶18

Mr. VK Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.4

¶19

¶20

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶21

(1). The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for her appointment to the post of ETT in the reserved category of Wards of Freedom Fighters.

¶22

(2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit maintaining that there were four posts reserved for the Wards of Freedom Fighters and the candidates belonging to the said reserved category having ETT qualification, have been given appointment against those four posts. It

¶23

is explained that the petitioner is B.A./B.Sc./B.Com./B.Ed. and the candidates having such qualification were to be given appointment only in the

¶24

2 –

¶25

CWP No.13041 of 2009%5D.doc

¶26

event of non-availability/non-joining of the candidates with ETT qualifications.

¶27

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends and rightly so that the candidates with ETT qualification to whom appointments have been offered against the posts reserved for the Wards of Freedom Fighters, namely, Kapalneet Singh; Dharminder Singh; Nitasha; and Suhird Iqbal Kaur got 138.57; 138.01; 145.76; and 141.31 per cent marks, respectively and they are much higher in merit than the Open Category candidates who have been given appointment as the last amongst them has got 110.06 % marks only. On this premise, it is urged that all the four candidates who are wards of Freedom Fighter having ETT qualification are entitled to be treated in the Open Category, their merit position being higher than the last candidate of open category given appointment, and the resultant vacancies reserved for the Wards of Freedom Fighters are liable to be filled in by giving appointment to the next candidates of that reserved category in the order of merit. The petitioner is admittedly the next candidate in the order of merit though with B.A./B.Ed. qualifications and is thus entitled to be appointed against a post reserved for the wards of Freedom Fighters.

¶28

3 –

¶29

CWP No.13041 of 2009%5D.doc

¶30

(4). There can be no exception to the legal principle urged on behalf of the petitioner inasmuch as a reserved category candidate who has got higher merit position than the last Open Category appointee, is entitled to be treated as an Open Category candidate only as has been held by this Court in Sukhpreet Singh & Ors. v. Punjab State Electricity Board (CWP No.5774 of 2010) decided on 13.10.2010. Applying this principle to the facts of the case in hand, the four candidates with ETT qualifications and who are the wards of Freedom Fighters and have secured higher marks than the last Open Category candidate who have been given appointment, are entitled to be treated in the Open category only.

¶31

(5). The petitioner would thus be entitled to be appointed against the resultant vacancy reserved for the Wards of Freedom Fighters.

¶32

(6). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner as ETT Teacher from the date other selected candidates were given appointment with all consequential benefits.

¶33

(7). The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

(8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶35

4 –

¶36

CWP No.13041 of 2009%5D.doc

¶37

17.02.2011 vishal shonkar

¶38

(S u r y a K a n t) Judge

Anu Sharma v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anu Sharma v. State of Punjab & 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

Dalbir Singh Vs Punjab Mandi Board and Anr.

Anju Chawla Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sunder Pal Goyal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surinder Singh Vs Punjab State Warehousing Corpn.

M/S Jai Mata Foods Ltd. Vs Market Committee, Sangrur Andanr.

Golden Arrow Residents Welfare Society Vs State of Punjab and Ors.