Balkar Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Both the petitioners had applied for the post of Physical Training Instructor (P.T.I.). 9 posts were reserved for ex-service men from the General Category (Male). The petitioners claiming themselves to be eligible, had applied under such category and a selection list at Annexure P-7 was issued on 28.2.2009 in which the names of the petitioners figured at Sr. Nos. 4 and 7 respectively.

The present writ petition was filed impugning the action of the respondent-authorities in changing the select list issued on 28.2.2009 and thereafter issuing a subsequent select list on 2.7.2009 in which names of the petitioners stood deleted and certain candidates having a lower merit position, were entered.

It so transpires that the names of the petitioners were deleted from the select list on account of an issue having arisen with respect to their qualifications possessed. The issue ultimately came to be redressed in the light of an additional affidavit dated 17.5.2012 filed in this Court by the Deputy Director (School Administration) office of Director Public Instructions (S.E.), Punjab, wherein a categoric stand was taken that the equivalency of qualifications possessed by the petitioners requires to be examined by the office of Director, Directorate of Sainik Welfare, Punjab, respondent no. 4. The State Govt., Education Department further took a positive stand that, if, respondent no. 4 was to return a finding as regards the petitioners being eligible for the post of P.T.I., then, the appointment letters would be duly issued to them.

Thereafter, an additional affidavit dated 23.5.2013 of the Director, Defence Services Welfare, State of Punjab has been filed in Court along with Annexure R-1 i.e. Memo dated 10.4.2013. As per Annexure R-1, it has been clearly stated that petitioner no. 1 i.e. Subedar Balkar Singh is not eligible for the post of P.T.I., whereas petitioner no. 2, Havildar Baldev Singh son of late Sh. Ajaib Singh, who has Army Trade of Instructor, A.E.C., is eligible for the post of P.T.I. in terms of the relevant guidelines. Accordingly, it has been stated that an appointment letter in favour of petitioner no. 2 be issued.

The additional affidavit of the Director, Defence Services Welfare, Punjab, respondent no. 4 dated 23.5.2013 was filed in pursuance to the order dated 18.8.2011 passed by this Court. Such directions had been issued in the light of the stand taken by the State Education Department as contained in para 5 of the additional affidavit dated 17.5.2012, filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 and which reads in the following terms:-

That the petitioner no. 2 has annexed the relevant part of his Discharge Book as Annexure P-4. A perusal of Annexure P-4 reveals that the petitioner no. 2 has obtained his qualification as AEC Instructor. It is further submitted that the contents regarding the equivalency of qualifications of these petitioners with regard to Civil Services can be better way explained by the office of Director, Directorate of Sainik Welfare, Punjab i.e. Respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that, if, the respondent no. 4 i.e. Director, Directorate of Sainik Welfare, Punjab found both the petitioners eligible for the post of Physical Training Instructor in terms of their merit and eligibility and recommend their names for the purpose of issuing of appointment letter and found eligible in terms of statutory rules then the office of deponent will appoint them.

In view of petitioner no. 2 having been held to be eligible for the post of P.T.I., I am of the considered view that there can be no impediment in so far issuance of appointment letter to him for the post of P.T.I. is concerned. Rather the State Govt. would be bound in the light of their own categoric stand as noticed and reproduced herein above in the affidavit dated 17.5.2012.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage would submit that in so far petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he would withdraw the instant writ petition in terms of seeking liberty to seek redressal on all such grounds that may be available to him, strictly in accordance with law on account of having been held ineligible for the post of P.T.I. in the light of Annexure R-1 dated 10.4.2013 appended along with the affidavit dated 23.5.2013 filed by the Director, Defence Services Welfare, State of Punjab.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is partly allowed. The respondent-State Education Department is directed to issue to petitioner no. 2 an appointment letter for the post of P.T.I. forthwith. Petitioner no. 2 would also be held entitled to all such benefits on the post of P.T.I. with effect from the date other candidates belonging to the same very category i.e. Ex-service men category were issued appointment letters to the post in question. In so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise a challenge as regards his having been adjudged as ineligible in the light of Annexure R-1 dated 10.4.2013 on all such grounds as may be available to him, strictly in accordance with law. Petition allowed in the aforesaid terms.