Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1399 (PNJ)

Harminder Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2002-12-17

M.L.SINGHAL

body2002
Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. Smt. Harminder Kaur Pannu-petitioner was a lecturer in Zoology in the college cadre in the State of Punjab and was on deputation from the Punjab Government with Government College for boys Sector 11, Chandigarh. She is M.Sc., B.Ed, M.Phil and Ph.D. She had experience of teaching degree classes, the syllabus of which is for science students of degree classes and includes "Physiology" with respect to Man, Human Genetics and Evolution, Biology and Public Health, Ecology including growth and control of population, Cell, Biology, Genetics, Developmental Biology, Physiology and Morphology of Fishes, amphibian reptiles, Apes and Mammals, as well as Invertebrates environmental studies and pollution, Respondent No. 3-Punjab Public Services Commission issued an advertisement No. 7(i) dated 14.9.1996 for recruitment to six posts of Principals in Government Colleges in the Department of Education of the State of Punjab. Out of these posts advertised, one post was reserved for Ex-Servicemen. It was indicated in the advertisement that the number of posts could be increased or decreased as per necessity. The age of the candidates applying for recruitment to these posts of principals was not to be more than 45 years as on 1.1.1996. Thereafter a corrigendum dated 15.2.1997 was issued by the Punjab Public Services Commission in pursuance of which the upper age limit of 45 years was increased to 52 years in respect of lecturers working in Govt. Colleges of Punjab. In view of the corrigendum, the last date for submission of application forms for the six posts of Principals of the Colleges was extended up to 3.3.1997. She was quite eligible for consideration for the post of Principal as she was less than 52 years old. She was born on 21.11.1948. In view of the corrigendum dated 15.2.1997 appended to advertisement dated 14.9.1996, she had the necessary qualifications as laid down in the advertisement namely: (A) - MA First Grade or High 2nd Grade (50%) in the concerned subject or an equivalent degree from the foreign universities with eight years experience of teaching. (B) - Eight years teaching experience with Ph.D. degree. (C) - Must have Punjabi qualification up to Matriculation. 2. She joined as lecturer in the Education Department in Punjab in the year, 1976 and she completed her Ph.D. in the year, 1986. (B) - Eight years teaching experience with Ph.D. degree. (C) - Must have Punjabi qualification up to Matriculation. 2. She joined as lecturer in the Education Department in Punjab in the year, 1976 and she completed her Ph.D. in the year, 1986. She thus had the requisite more than eight years experience of teaching and was also holding Ph.D.degree at the time of applying for the post of Principal in Government Colleges of the State of Punjab. She had necessary Punjabi qualification up to matriculation. She had obtained 82 marks out of 150 marks in Punjabi in matriculation examination held in March, 1964. She was claiming consideration for one post reserved for Ex-servicemen as the wife of an Ex-serviceman Major (Retd.) Preetinder Singh Pannu. She was not considered for the post of Principal reserved for the Ex-servicemen in view of the provisions of second proviso Clause (ii) to Rule 4(1) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982. She should have been considered in the Ex-servicemen quota for the post of Principal as Clause (ii) of the second proviso to Rule 4(1) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 as inserted by notification dated 22.9.1992 and published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette dated 2.10.1992 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Through this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing Clause (ii) of the second proviso to Rule 4(1) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 as inserted in pursuance of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen (First Amendment) Rules, 1992 vide notification dated 22.9.1992 and published in the Punjab Govt. Gazetee on 2.10.1992 and for quashing item No. 15 of advertisement No. 9 dated 16.1.1999 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No. 3-Punjab Public Service Commission to the extent that one post of Principal (Govt. Colleges) under the reserved category of Punjab Ex-servicemen/dependent of Ex-Servicemen has been advertised as the result of previous recruitment process of the interview held on 19.5.1997 for the posts of College Principal under the reserved category of Punjab Ex-Servicemen has not been declared. Colleges) under the reserved category of Punjab Ex-servicemen/dependent of Ex-Servicemen has been advertised as the result of previous recruitment process of the interview held on 19.5.1997 for the posts of College Principal under the reserved category of Punjab Ex-Servicemen has not been declared. Petitioner has further prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant the benefit and reservation of Ex-Servicemen to the petitioner by considering and appointing her as College Principal in the College cadre of Principals of respondents No. 1 and 2 from the quota of reserved seats of Ex-Servicemen in accord ance with the provisions of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 as advertised in pursuance of the advertisement No. REG-393/96 (Annexures P-4 and P4/A) and also for direction to respondent No,3 to publish and declare the result of the recruitment process for the post of College Principals from the reserved category of Ex-Servicemen in pursuance of the advertisements Annexures P-4 and P-4/A and direction to respondent No. 1 to appoint her as Principal of Government College under respondents No. 1 and 2 and to restrain the respondents from making any recruitment to one post of College Principal reserved for Punjab Ex-Servicemen, dependant of Ex-Servicemen in pursuance of advertisement No. 9 dated 16.1.1999 Annexure P-8. 4. Respondents contested this writ petition, urging that the petitioner could not claim any reservation meant for the Ex-Servicemen of Punjab or their dependant as she was already in service and not dependant on an Ex-serviceman. Her claim to be recruited as Principal against the reserved vacancy meant for Ex-Servicemen category was rightly rejected. As per the Rule 2(AA) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, it is necessary that the persons claim as "dependant child" is to be considered if the applicant is wholly dependant on the Ex-Serviceman. Since, she was working as lecturer, her candidature could not be considered among the "dependant child" of Ex-Serviceman and she was considered as a "general category candidate". Since, she was working as lecturer, her candidature could not be considered among the "dependant child" of Ex-Serviceman and she was considered as a "general category candidate". As a general category candidate, she appeared for interview without raising any objection and when she failed to obtain the required standard of merit, she filed this writ petition saying that she was eligible as dependant of Ex-Serviceman, Petitioner having participated in the selection process and having failed, has no locus-standi to challenge the selection Rule 4(1) of the Rules reads as under; "4. Reservation of Vacancies.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 3, fourteen percent of the vacancies to be filled in by direct appointment in all the State Civil Services and Posts connected with the affairs of the State of Punjab shall be reserved for being filled in by recruitment of Ex-servicemen. Provided that where an Ex-servicemen is not available for recruitment against a reserved vacancy, such a vacancy shall be reserved to be filed in by recruitment of the wife or one dependent child of an Ex-Serviceman, who has neither been recruited against a reserved vacancy nor is eligible to be recruited against such vacancy under these rules: Provided further that the wife or the dependent child of the Ex-serviceman shall be recruited against the reserved vacancy subject to the condition that:- (i) he or she possess the prescribed qualification and is within the prescribed age limits; (ii) he or she is not already in service, (iii) he or she will be eligible to avail the benefit of recruitment against the reserved vacancy only such once in life; Provided further that the total number of reserved vacancies including those reserved for the candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes shall not exceed fifty percent of the posts to be filled in a particular year. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that perusal of the first provision to Rule 4(1) pf the Rules shows that where an Ex-Serviceman is not available for recruitment against a reserved vacancy, such a vacancy shall be reserved to be filled in by recruitment pf the wife or one dependent child of an Ex-Serviceman, who has neither been recruited against reserved vacancy nor is eligible to be recruited against such vacancy under these rules, It was submitted that petitioner is the wife of an Ex-Service-man. Husband of the petitioner has not been recruited against the reserved vacancy and nor is he eligible to be recruited against such vacancy under the rules, As such, the vacancy should either go to the wife of an Ex-Serviceman or the "dependent child" of an Ex-Serviceman. It was submitted by him that the addition of Clause (II) to second proviso to Rule 4 has made the reservation in favour of the wife/wives or the dependant children Ex-Servicemen redundant. It was submitted that if the petitioner were not already in service, how could she fulfil the qualifications meant for recruitment to the post of Principal of Govt. College in the State of Punjab. How could she acquire 8 yeas teaching experience if she were not in service? It was submitted that she could acquire 8 years teaching experience only if she were in service. 6. It was submitted that she did not avail the benefit of recruitment against a reserved vacancy earlier. It was for the first time that she was claiming benefit of reservation available to an Ex-Serviceman or his wife or one "dependent child". 7. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong so far as the addition of Clause (II) to second provision to Rule 4 of the Rules is concerned. Petitioner is not dependent upon her husband-Preetinder Singh, who has retired as major from the Indian Force. She could claim reservation meant for the Ex-Servicemen category if she were dependent on her husband who is an Ex-Serviceman. Codes provided for various categories in the application from were as under:- Category Code Code Name 01 General Category 02 Mazhbi Sikhs/Balmiki (Punjab) 03 Other Scheduled Castes (Punjab) 04 Scheduled Castes (Other States) 05 Backward Class (Punjab) 06 Backward Class (Other States) 07 Ex-Servicemen 08 Ward of Freedom Figthers (Punjab) 09 Sportsmen/Women (Punjab) 10 Dependent of Ex-Servicemen 11 Govt. Servant (Punjab) 12 Widows/other category of Women. 8 The above codes show that category code 07 is for Ex-Servicemen categories and category code 10 is for dependent of Ex-Servicemen. Petitioner was neither an Ex-Servicemen nor dependent of an Ex-Servicemen and therefore she was ineligible for being considered from amongst the reserved category of Ex-Servicemen. She cannot be considered as dependant of Ex-Servicemen in view of the Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 as amended on 22,9.1992. Petitioner was neither an Ex-Servicemen nor dependent of an Ex-Servicemen and therefore she was ineligible for being considered from amongst the reserved category of Ex-Servicemen. She cannot be considered as dependant of Ex-Servicemen in view of the Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 as amended on 22,9.1992. Her case does not fall within the ambit of dependant child of Ex-Servicemen as per the connotation given in the Ex-Servicemen Rules, as amended, on 22.9.1992 as she was not dependant of Ex-servicemen, So, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.