Balwinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 25.03.2013 at Annexure P-4 passed by the Director of Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, whereby the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment to the post of Vocational Master (Mechanical) has been rejected. Brief facts which would require notice are that the School Education Department, State of Punjab issued a public notice for recruitment of 7654 posts in the teaching and non teaching cadre. Out of these, 2106 posts were meant for Vocational Masters/Mistresses in different trades. 78 posts were earmarked for the mechanical trade. The petitioner who claims to be eligible on account of possessing the requisite qualification prescribed for the post duly applied under the reserved category of SC (R&O). In such process of selection, the merit of the petitioner was determined at Sr. No. 62.

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 13775 of 2012 raising a specific plea that in the first process of counselling candidates up to merit position No. 36 in the reserved category (R&O) had been called and as such, he was not even eligible to participate in such counselling exercise. Thereafter, a second counselling was duly announced by issuing of a public notice and was held on 10/11.07.2011. It was specifically pleaded in the earlier writ petition that on account of certain compelling personal circumstances, the petitioner could not attend the second process of counselling. It was against such categoric pleadings that a prayer was made that certain posts of Vocational Masters (Mechanical) are still lying vacant and since candidates lower in merit have been considered, the petitioner may be afforded a chance for consideration by holding another special counselling. It was in the light of such specific averments/stand taken that this Court had shown indulgence and disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 24.07.2012 to the following effect:

Without making any observations as regards the merit of the claim raised by the petitioner in the light of the fact that candidates lower in merit have been selected and appointed and coupled with the fact that the petitioner could not attend the second process of counselling on account of compelling circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with directions to the respondent/authorities to decide the legal notice dated 16.04.2012 (Annexure P-7) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Petition disposed of.

It is in purported compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 24.07.2012 that the impugned order dated 25.03.2013 has been passed. A perusal of the same would reveal that the Competent Authority has taken a view that in spite of due notice having been afforded in the light of public notice/advertisement having been issued, the petitioner himself had absented from the process of counselling and consequently, candidates lower in merit have managed to secure appointment. Furthermore, it has been noticed in the impugned order that the selection process has since been finalized and it would not be appropriate to open the issue afresh as the same would entail the revision of the entire merit list and could also work to the detriment of such candidates who already stand appointed.

Learned counsel while assailing the impugned order dated 25.03.2013 (Annexure P-4) would now contend that the petitioner was not to blame insofar as his having absented himself from the second process of counselling. Towards such assertion, it is sought to be contended that in fact the merit position posted on line whereby the candidates were invited to participate in the process of counselling was not proper and not strictly in the order of merit.

Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the considered view that the present writ petition deserves dismissal being wholly misconceived. In the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP No. 13775 of 2012, the petitioner was on affidavit to state that he had not appeared in the second counselling on account of personal/compelling circumstances. In the instant writ petition, there is a complete change of stand. The impugned order in the present writ petition has been passed in the light of directions that had been issued vide order dated 24.07.2012 while disposing of CWP No. 13775 of 2012, whereby the stand of the petitioner was taken to be correct and thereby indulgence had been shown. Having procured such order by this Court and his claim having been rejected, it would not be open for the petitioner to enter into the second bout of litigation on a materially different stand. Such exercise requires deprecation. The petitioner by his conduct has disentitled himself from any relief from the writ Court.

I find no basis that would justify interference in the impugned order dated 25.03.2013 at Annexure P-4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is unemployed, I would constrain myself from imposing costs upon him.