Milind vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 3489, 4552, 4975, 8918, 9023 and 9269 of 2014.

Though the petitioners herein have applied for different posts such as in CWP No. 3489 of 2014 for Science Mistress, in CWP No. 4552 of 2014 for Head Mistress, in CWP No. 4975 of 2014 for S.S. Teacher, in CWP No. 8918 of 2014 for Head Mistresses, in CWP No. 9023 for PGT (Computer Lecturer) and in CWP No. 9269 of 2014 for TGT Punjabi and TGT SST. However, all the petitions are taken up together as the issue raised therein is common.

The grievance of the petitioners is that though they are more meritorious in terms of the tentative merit list prepared as per the marks secured by them in their educational qualifications, but still after giving 2-3 opportunities to appear in counselling, they were not permitted to appear, however, candidates lower in merit were called for counselling.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the process of selection is still open, the petitioners should also be permitted to participate therein as during counselling only the original certificates were to be verified. After verification of the certificates, the eligible candidates were to appear for interview. There are many reasons on account of which the petitioners could not appear on the date of counselling which are sought to be canvassed before this Court, which include delivery of child, accident and non-availability of internet facility in the villages.

In CWP No. 4975 of 2014, the petitioner could not appear in the counselling scheduled between 27.12.2013 to 31.12.2013, as she had delivered a baby on 17.12.2013 and remained admitted in the hospital upto 1.1.2014. In the next counselling scheduled on 8.2.2014, the candidates below in merit were called. She moved an application for permitting her to participate in the counselling along with the medical record but she was not permitted. In terms of the interim order passed on 2.4.2014, she was permitted provisionally to get her certificates verified.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that once the petitioners were given sufficient chances to present themselves for counselling and they having failed to avail of the opportunities, further chance to the persons who are lower in merit has to be given as the same candidates could not be granted opportunities repeatedly. He further submitted that for the post of Head Masters/Mistresses, interviews are scheduled from 25.6.2014 to 2.6.2014, whereas for all other posts dates of interview are yet to be fixed.

Learned counsel for the State, however, did not dispute the fact that in case the petitioners, who are claiming themselves to be more meritorious, are not permitted to appear for counselling, the candidates with less marks may get appointments, as the candidates three times the number of vacancies advertised are called for interview on merit.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

In this bunch of petitions, the only grievance raised by the petitioners is that though the process of counselling was still open as the certificates in original possessed by a candidate were being checked, but still the petitioners, who are more meritorious were not given further opportunity to present themselves as they had missed the counselling scheduled earlier in which as per their merit position they were called for getting the certificates checked. Once the process of counselling is in progress and the candidates lower in merit were being called, there should not be any difficulty to afford opportunity to the candidates, who are having better merit position than the candidates called for counselling as in the process of counselling only the certificates possessed by a candidates were to be verified to check their eligibility. The process which was adopted by the State may result in appointment of the candidates who may be lower in merit. This has no nexus with the object to be achieved, which always has to be appointment of meritorious persons. Once the candidates having better merit are available and ready to appear in counselling, process for which is still open, they should have been afforded opportunity for the purpose. It is not the case that the process of counselling was already over and the process of selection had reached the next stage.

In the present set of cases though some of the candidates have approached this Court and by an interim order, they were even permitted to participate in the counselling which was already scheduled. However, there are other candidates also who may have missed the counselling but did not approach the Court finding that the next date fixed for counselling was not meant for them. Once the petitioners who are higher in merit than the candidates who have been subsequently called for counselling are being permitted to participate in the selection which is still going on, to avoid discrimination, it would be appropriate to offer opportunity to all the left over candidates, who are more meritorious, than the candidates who have been called for counselling. The State shall call all the left over candidates for counselling on a date to be notified for the purpose upto the merit position they have already called the candidates. In case they are found to be eligible, then they be allowed to participate in further process of selection as per their merit position. It is further directed that in future also the State should frame policy to permit the candidates who are higher in merit in subsequent counselling in case the process is still open and the candidates, who were lower in merit, have been called.

In CWP No. 3489 of 2014, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has also raised the issue regarding her eligibility in BC Category. However, as specifically her claim has not been rejected on that account, the issue may be left open and in case the petitioner is aggrieved of any action on the part of the respondents, she may avail of her appropriate remedy available at that stage.

Ordered accordingly.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.