In this appeal, the appellant challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of her writ petition for appointment as a DPE Mistress. The core dispute involved a corrigendum mandating countersigned experience certificates, which the appellant failed to comply with, leading to rejection of her claim.
Appeal dismissed; no relief granted to the appellant.
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.
LPA No. 2053 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 2053 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.05.2013
Daljit Kaur
..... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
PRESENT: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.2012, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby her writ petition for quashing of order dated 2.3.2009, rejecting her claim for appointment to the post of D.P.E Mistresses and to issue a mandamus to offer her appointment after granting benefit of 'experience' towards overall merits, has been dismissed.
The appellant applied for the post of DPE Mistress in response to an advertisement dated 29.8.2007. It was not mentioned in the advertisement that the experience certificate must be counter-signed
LPA No. 2053 of 2012 -2-
by the concerned District Education Officer/concerned Competent Authority but a corrigendum was issued on 4.9.2007, Clause 1 whereof stipulated as follows:-
“1. There was a note No. 2 below the criteria regarding the experience certificate in which there was no condition of Counter Signature of the experience certificate, now it is amended that the experience certificate must be Counter Signed from concerned District Education Officer/concerned Competent Authority.”
(emphasis applied)
The appellant relied upon an experience certificate from 15.8.1996 to 10.9.1997 issued by a private school affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education from 15.8.1996 to 10.9.1997. This certificate was not initially counter-signed by the Competent Authority. She did not send the experience certificate duly counter-signed by the Competent Authority despite issuance of the corrigendum. The appellant's experience certificate was counter-signed by a Section Officer of the Central Board of Secondary Education on 7.4.2008 only and she produced it at the time of counseling. Since the said experience certificate was submitted after the cut off date, the Authorities declined to grant marks to the appellant for the 'experience'.
The aggrieved appellant filed a writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
LPA No. 2053 of 2012 -3-
through the record. We have also gone through the three decisions cited in support of this appeal in Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, Jee and others, 2005 (9) SCC 779, Charles K. Skaria and others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others, 1980 (2) SCC 752 and Seema Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another,1997 (1) SLR 32.
In our considered view, the appellant cannot take advantage of the fact that as per the original advertisement, experience certificate was not required to be counter-signed by the District Education Officer/concerned Competent Authority. Since the corrigendum was issued well in advance before the commencement of counseling, it was imperative upon the appellant to get the experience certificate countersigned by the Competent Authority, particularly when the said certificate was statedly issued in the year 1998.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in the instant appeal. Dismissed.
| ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| May 03, 2013 rishu |
( R.P. NAGRATH ) JUDGE |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant can avail benefit of experience despite failure to get certificate countersigned after corrigendum.
Whether the meritless appeal should be dismissed as experience certificate was submitted after cut off date.
Whether the corrigendum issued before counseling was imperative for the appellant to follow.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, Jee and othersReferred¶25
Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, Jee and others, 2005 (9) SCC 779 · Who else cites this
Charles K. Skaria and others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and othersReferred¶25
Charles K. Skaria and others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others, 1980 (2) SCC 752 · Who else cites this
Seema Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anotherReferred¶25
Seema Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another,1997 (1) SLR 32.
Daljit Kaur
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
R.P. Nagrath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
