Dismissed

Jyoti v. B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya and Aors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Nov 2011LPA/2082/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the lower court's order setting aside the appellant's appointment as a TGT/Music Teacher because she lacked the essential qualification of graduation at the time of application and appointment. The court rejected the plea that appointing her to a different post (PRT) would be valid.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; impugned judgment setting aside the selection/appointment of the appellant was upheld.

Jyoti Vs B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya and… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

LPA No.2082 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA No.2082 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.11.2011

Jyoti

... Appellant

versus

B.P.S. Mahila Vishwa Vidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan & others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶11

Present : Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. ****

¶12

Permod Kohli, J.(Oral)

¶13

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2011 passed by learned Single Judge setting aside the selection/appointment of the appellant for the post of Music/Dance Teacher for the Campus School of the University.

¶14

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

¶15

An advertisement for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Music/Dance for the Campus School was issued on 03.04.2008, which was followed by another advertisement dated 18.04.2008 (wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment as 07.04.2008 and 30.04.2008). The last date for receipt of application was notified as 30.04.2008. The appellant and respondent No.5 applied for the post in question. The Selection Committee prepared the merit list and placed the appellant at serial No.1 and respondent No.5 at serial No.2. The appellant was selected and appointed to the post in question.

¶16

LPA No.2082 of 2011 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

Respondent No.5 challenged the selection/appointment of the present appellant by filing CWP No.14150 of 2008 alleging that the appellant (appointee) did not possess the requisite qualification of graduation on the last date of making application and even at the time of appointment on the said post. Learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment accepted the contentions of respondent No.5 on the basis of the pleadings of the parties particularly the resolution adopted by the University in the meeting of Executive Committee held on 05.10.2011 wherein it was resolved to terminate the service of the appellant herein being not eligible at the time of interview. It is even the admitted case of the appellant that she did not possess the requisite qualification even up-till the date of appointment. Based upon the admitted position of ineligibility of the appellant, learned Single Judge set aside her selection/appointment. Resultantly a further direction was issued to consider respondent No.5 (writ petitioner) for appointment as Music/ Dance Teacher subject to her being eligible and any other relevant factor.

¶19

It is against the aforesaid judgment and the findings that the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly admitted that the appellant was not a graduate either at the time of making application or even at the time of her appointment. It is contended that the appellant had appeared for the graduation examination but her result had not been declared till the time of appointment. The fact remains that the appellant was not eligible for want of requisite essential qualification even on the date of appointment. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that even though the post advertised was for Trained Graduate Teacher and

¶20

LPA No.2082 of 2011 (O&M)

¶21

-3-

¶22

the appellant was not eligible for the same, however, the Selection Committee in its wisdom recommended the appellant for appointment as PRT for which the appellant is fully eligible as the qualification for the same is Senior Secondary with one year JBT in music and dance.

¶23

This contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant also deserves no appreciation. Admittedly, the advertisement was for TGT and not for PRT. How could the Selection Committee recommend for a post for which no advertisement was issued and all eligible candidates have been deprived of applying and competing for the same. Even if it is assumed that the appellant was appointed on another post, it was also illegal and unwarranted being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

Since the ineligibility of the appellant for the advertised post was not in dispute , we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶25

(Permod Kohli) Judge

¶26

November 14, 2011 (Tejinder Singh Dhindsa) sonia Judge

Jyoti v. B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya and Aors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti v. B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya and Aors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunder Dass and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Housing Board, Haryana Vs S.B. Kumar and Anr.

Semi Conductor Laboratory Vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Vibhuti Yadav Vs Haryana Public Service Commission & Ors.

Ram Vir Singh Vs Vice Chancellor, Dbcr, Sonepat and Ors.

Babita Rani Vs Punjabi University & Ors.