Disposed

Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Aug 2011CWP/17818/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the petitioner's lack of appointment as a Punjabi Master in the Backward Class category. The court ordered the petitioner to submit a representation if lower-merit candidates were appointed, to determine notional service benefits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to submit a representation regarding appointment of lower-merit candidates for determination of notional service benefits.

Raj Kumar 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.17818 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.08.2011

Raj Kumar

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: Dr. ML Sachdeva, Advocate; and Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

¶17

Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab

¶18

¶19

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶20

(1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.17818 of 2009 & 10486 of 2010 as common issues are involved for adjudication. The facts, for brevity, are being extracted from CWP No.17818 of 2009.

¶21

(2). The petitioner seeks a direction for his appointment as Punjabi Master in the reserved category of Backward Class. The petitioner’s candidature was earlier rejected for the aforesaid post for want of proper Backward Class certificate. There were some other candidates also whose Backward Class certificates were not accepted by the respondents.

¶22

(3). A Division Bench of this Court, while intervening in the matter in CWP No.922 of 2008 (Gunja v. State of

¶23

2 –

¶24

CWP No.17818 of 2009.doc

¶25

Punjab & Ors.) decided on September 30, 2008 held as

¶26

follows:-

¶27

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the petitioner has been illegally denied consideration for selection and appointment as lecturer in English in BC category in violation of the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition, quash the impugned order dated 23.01.2007 (Annexure P12) and direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Lecturer in English, being higher in merit than respondents No.3 to 5. The respondents shall displace the candidate(s) lowest in merit in Backward Class category. Respondents, shall however, be at liberty to accommodate such displaced candidate(s) against other vacancies, if available. The petitioner shall be entitled to notional service benefits with effect from the date the candidate lower in merit than her was appointed.

¶28

It is further clarified that if in the process of appointment of the petitioners in the aforesaid connected writ petitions, appointment of already appointed candidates is to be cancelled and such candidate(s) was/were not impleaded as respondents in the connected writ petitions, then their appointment(s) shall be cancelled after following due process of law. Needless to say that the respondents will be at liberty to accommodate such displaced candidates against any posts lying vacant.”

¶29

3 –

¶30

CWP No.17818 of 2009.doc

¶31

(4). Since the petitioner did not get appointment despite the above-reproduced directions that he has approached this Court.

¶32

(5). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit taking the following plea in preliminary submission No.2: -

¶33

“That in order to comply with the various orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, as mentioned above, the respondent department has prepared a revised merit list of the Backward Class candidates in various subjects including the subject of Punjabi by treating the candidates as eligible, who had earlier not been considered. A complete revised merit list of 25 candidates depicting the merit of last selected candidates as 64.667 is being annexed herewith as Annexure R1. However, the merit of the petitioner, as per the prescribed criteria is 64.319. Hence, the claim of the petitioner for the post of Punjabi Master in the category of Backward Class (Male) is not sustainable.”

¶34

(6). The petitioner does not dispute the fact that his merit comes at No.64.319. It also appears that no candidate lower in merit was given appointment till the filing of this petition.

¶35

(7). Learned counsel for the petitioner states at the bar that during the pendency of this writ petition, some Backward Class category candidates who are lower in merit have been given appointment. He relies upon the communication

¶36

4 –

¶37

CWP No.17818 of 2009.doc

¶38

received from the respondents under the RTI Act in this regard.

¶39

(8). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the competent authority along with the particulars of the candidates lower in merit who have been given appointment. Such a representation shall be considered and disposed of by the competent authority keeping in view the inter-se -merit of the Backward Class category candidates and if it is found that the candidate(s) lower in merit has/have been given appointment, the petitioner shall also be given appointment notionally from the same date.

¶40

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

¶41

(10). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar 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

Sukhdeep Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Reetika & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurmail Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ajit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.