Writ petition filed for appointment to Teaching Fellow post. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to produce a valid Backward Class Certificate newer than one year prior to the application deadline, rendering her ineligible despite having merit points higher than a subsequent appointee.
Petition dismissed with finding no merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Writ Petition No.14464 of 2011 : 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: May 06, 2013
Ms.Veena Rani
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr.Vikram Anand, Advocate, for Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the State.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH J. (ORAL)
Civil Misc.No.7014 of 2013
Replication taken on record.
CM stands disposed of.
Civil Writ Petition No.14464 of 2011
Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioner to the post of Teaching Fellow in pursuance of advertisement dated 5.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondents.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner applied for the post of Teaching Fellow as she fulfilled the requisite qualifications for consideration for appointment for the
Civil Writ Petition No.14464 of 2011 : 2 :
said post as laid down in the advertisement dated 5.9.2007 (Annexure P-1). Merit list for B.C.Category was published by the respondents. Name of the petitioner figured at Sr.No.16. Posts upto Sr.No.14 belonging to B.C.Class were occupied in the second counselling, which was held in October, 2008. Petitioner obtained 58.99 merit points. An application under the Right to Information Act was submitted by the petitioner and as per the information which was supplied in pursuance thereto, it came to light that the last B.C. (Female) Category candidate, who has been appointed as Teaching Fellow had obtained 58.94 merit points. Her name figured at Sr.No.18 of the merit list of the B.C.Category. Petitioner, therefore, has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents for issuing appointment letter in the light of the fact that the petitioner is higher in merit than Taranjeet Kaur (respondent No.4), who was at Sr.No.18 of the merit list.
Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, wherein it has been asserted that the petitioner was not issued the appointment letter on the ground that she did not produce the Backward Class certificate, which was within the stipulated period as specified in Clause 6 of the advertisement. As per this Clause, a candidate, who was seeking reservation for the Backward Class of Punjab, had to produce the said certificate as prescribed by the State Government and issued by the competent authority, which should not be older than one year on the last date of submission of the application, i.e., 30.09.2007. This requirement was mandated as per the instructions of the Welfare Department issued vide letters dated
Civil Writ Petition No.14464 of 2011 : 3 :
17.1.1994 and 18.8.2005.
In response to this objection raised by the respondents, counsel for the petitioner has referred to the replication to contend that subsequent certificates of B.C.Category have also been issued in favour of the petitioner, copies of which have been appended as Annexures P-8 and P-9, where again the petitioner is shown to be belonging to the B.C.Category and on this basis, the counsel contends that the petitioner belongs to the Backward Class and, therefore, merely on the ground that the certificate issued to the petitioner, which was appended along with the application, was prior to one year of the last date of receipt of applications, cannot be a ground for denying the petitioner appointment to the post of Teaching Fellow. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.13239 of 2007 (Navneet Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others), decided on 24.7.2008 to contend that a candidate, who belongs to the Backward Class, always remains a Backward Class candidate, if ultimately also the same certificate is issued although it may not be as per the instructions issued by the Department.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and with the assistance of the counsel for the parties have gone through the records of the case.
Clause 6 of the advertisement dated 5.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) under the heading general conditions reads as under:-
“Candidate seeking reservation meant for the member of scheduled Caste/Backward Classes of Punjab State only
Civil Writ Petition No.14464 of 2011 : 4 :
shall have to produce Scheduled Caste Certificate/ Backward Class Certificate as applicable, as prescribed by the State Government, issued by the Competent Authority. The BC Certificate must not be older than one year on the last date of submitting the application in accordance with the instructions of Welfare Department issued vide dated 17.01.1994 and dated 18.08.05 clearly indicating the caste.”
A perusal of the above condition would clearly leave no manner of doubt that all candidates, who had sought appointment to the post of Teaching Fellow under the reserved category, i.e., Backward Class, as per the advertisement dated 5.9.2007, were put to notice that the Backward Class Certificate had to be not more than one year prior to the last date of receipt of the applications.
Petitioner, admittedly, did not possess such certificate. If that be so, the petitioner knowing fully well that the certificate was to be possessed by her, which was not more than one year old, should have taken immediate steps for either issuance of a fresh certificate which could have been obtained prior to the last date of submission of the application or could have placed any evidence on record that such effort was made by the petitioner but the certificate could not be obtained by her because of the delay on the part of the competent authority in issuance of the certificate. There being nothing which would indicate or justify that there was any bonafide attempt on the part of the petitioner, a condition as imposed in the advertisement will, therefore, prevail.
Civil Writ Petition No.14464 of 2011 : 5 :
The petitioner having no certificate as required under the advertisement, i.e., 30.09.2007 which being the last date of submission of the application, at the relevant time, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner cannot be said to be not in consonance with the advertisement, , which has the force of law as the conditions for eligibility have been prescribed therein.
The judgment, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, i.e., Navneet Kaur's case (supra), would not be applicable to the present case as the facts and circumstances under which such an observation was made by this Court were different. In that case, the petitioner was issued a certificate that she belongs to a Backward Class Category. The said certificate, which was issued to the petitioner, was as per the then prevalent instructions. In the subsequent instructions, which were issued by the State Government, further qualification for issuance of a certificate for the Other Backward Class Category was specified. Under those circumstances, it was observed that the earlier certificate issued to the petitioner cannot be said to be not in consonance with the requirement of the advertisement and, therefore, the action of the respondents was found to be faulty. In the present case, a specific condition was imposed in the advertisement, which was made known to all candidates and the petitioner having not fulfilled the said requisite conditions, which has resulted in the negation of the candidature of the petitioner, cannot be said to be not in consonance with law.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the
Civil Writ Petition No.14464 of 2011 : 6 :
same is dismissed.
May 06, 2013 ramesh
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who failed to produce a fresh Backward Class Certificate within the stipulated time limit, despite joining earlier, is entitled to an appointment letter.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Navneet Kaur Versus State of Punjab and othersDistinguished¶35
Civil Writ Petition No.13239 of 2007 (Navneet Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others)
Ms. Veena Rani
State of Punjab
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
