Disposed¶26

Sumanpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Service Law – Recruitment – Junior Coach (Rifle shooting category No.5)

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jan 2025CWP/4931/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-4931-2021; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Aman Chaudhary, J.; Junior Coach Rifle shooting category No.5; Advertisement No.3/2012 dated 05.07.2012; BPED 74.64%; counselling 14.12.2015 to 23.12.2015; Clause 12 registered envelopes communication; regional newspaper notice 05.12.2015; Board website notice 08.12.2015; RTI 27.10.2020 Annexure P-7 vacant post; interim order 24.03.2021 post kept vacant; direction to consider appointment per merit; two months compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment as per the merit determined by the Board, against the post kept vacant by this Court's order dated 24.03.2021; needful to be done within two months. ¶26

Sumanpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents ought to be directed to consider the petitioner's case for appointment to the post of Junior Coach (Rifle shooting category No.5) notwithstanding her non-appearance at counselling, given that the post was kept vacant and she had higher merit (74.64%) than the two appointed candidates. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for appointment as per the merit determined by the Board, against the post kept vacant by order dated 24.03.2021, with needful to be done within two months.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The authorities failed to follow the procedure of communication envisaged in the Advertisement; no communication was sent to the petitioner in terms of Clause 12 other than the public notice published only in a regional newspaper, gravely prejudicing her cause.

¶25

Key takeaways

Counselling scheduled three years after initiation of the selection process in 2012 was not reasonable, and expecting a candidate to continuously monitor the Board's website was a tall order.ratio¶25
The petitioner, though meritorious, was left in the lurch without being at fault.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law – Recruitment – Junior Coach (Rifle shooting category No.5) – Selection of 2012 under Advertisement No.3/2012 dated 05.07.2012 based on percentage of marks in technical qualification. Petitioner, holding 74.64% in BPED, was not appointed as she did not attend counselling held from 14.12.2015 to 23.12.2015, of which notice was published only in a regional newspaper on 05.12.2015 and on the Board's website on 08.12.2015. Two candidates with lower marks (73.25% and 63%) were appointed; one post lay vacant as per RTI reply dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure P-7), kept vacant by this Court's interim order dated 24.03.2021. Held: the authorities failed to follow the communication procedure contemplated by Clause 12 of the Advertisement (enclosure of registered envelopes for correspondence); counselling fixed three years after initiation of the process was unreasonable, and expecting candidates to keep visiting the Board's website was a tall order; the meritorious petitioner was left in the lurch without fault. Petition disposed of with a direction to consider her for appointment as per Board-determined merit against the kept-vacant post within two months.

¶1

CWP-4931-2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

209

¶5

CWP-4931-2021 Date of decision: 10.01.2025

Sumanpreet Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sehajbir Singh Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

¶15

Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Coach (Rifle shooting category No.5).

¶16

The petitioner applied in the year 2012 pursuant to Advertisement No.3/2012 dated 05.07.2012. As per the criteria, the selections were to be made based on the percentage of marks obtained in technical qualification. Admittedly, she in her BPED secured 74.64%. In the rifle category, there were 3 posts against which 2 candidates, who were appointed, had 73.25% and 63% marks, respectively. One post remained vacant, as is apparent from the RTI information dated 27.10.2020, Annexure P-7.

¶17

The primary ground taken by the respondent for not offering appointment to the petitioner was that she did not appear in the counselling that took place from 14.12.2015 to 23.12.2015, which was scheduled after publication of a notice in a leading newspaper of the region on 05.12.2015 and also on the Board’s website on 08.12.2015 alongwith game wise list of candidates including her name.

¶18

Reference on behalf of the petitioner is made to Clause 12 of the

¶19

Advertisement, which reads thus:-

¶20

HAMANT 2025.01.14 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-4931-2021

¶22

¶23

“12. That the candidate have to write the name of the post on the envelope and have to attach two registered envelopes alongwith postal tickets with the envelope. The applicant have to enclose the same for the purpose of letter correspondence.”

¶24

As is apparent from the application form, Annexure P-2 that the petitioner was a resident of Village Gurusar 2W, Shri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan and it is not the case of the respondents that any communication was sent to her in terms of the aforesaid clause other than the public notice, admittedly published only in a regional newspaper, there being nothing produced on record to show its circulation in the above State and ergo gravely prejudiced his cause.

¶25

It is evident that the authorities failed to follow the procedure of communication as envisaged in the advertisement, moreover, the selection process initiated way back in the year 2012, counselling for which having been scheduled 3 years thereafter, it cannot be said to be reasonable and was a tall order to expect a candidate to continue to visit the website of the Board as well. As such, the petitioner, although meritorious, was left in the lurch without being at fault.

¶26

As a fall out and consequence of the afore-discussion, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as per the merit determined by the Board against the post which this Court on 24.03.2021 had ordered to be kept vacant. Needful be done within a period of two months.

¶27

	(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
10.01.2025
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes / No
Whether reportable	: Yes / No

¶28

HAMANT 2025.01.14 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sumanpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumanpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aashi Sharda and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Shabdesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajinder Bir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Simarjeet Kaur Alias Simerjeet Kaur Alias Simranjeet Kaur Vs Baba Farid University of Health Sciences

Sohan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amrik Singh Sidhu Vs State of Pb.Etc.