Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 385 (PNJ)

Samerjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2006-02-08

M.M.KUMAR

body2006
JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for their appointment to the post of P.T.I. They have claimed that they were fully, eligible and qualified for appointment to the aforementioned posts. As an interim measure, the petitioners had also prayed for granting provisional permission directing the respondent No.3 to interview them provisionally subject to the final decision of the writ petition. When the writ petition came up for motion hearing, the Division Bench on 4.7.2001 had directed that the petitioners are otherwise eligible but for the Diploma in Physical Training Education which has not been recognized by the respondent-State of Punjab. It was directed that they would be provisionally interviewed and their results was not be declared. Accordingly, the petitioners have been interviewed and their results have been kept in a sealed cover. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Departmental Selection Committee (Teaching) constituted by the Director of Public Instructions Punjab (Respondent No.3) issued an advertisement on 29.3.2001 inviting applications to the posts of P.T.I. The applications were required to be submitted by 17.4.2001. For the aforementioned posts the qualification of matric and certificate course in physical education, as recognized by the Punjab Government, was required. The petitioners have applied in response to the advertisement along with requisite fee of Rs.200/-. They disclosed that they had acquired requisite qualification of matriculation from Punjab School Education Board and the qualification of Certificate Course in Physical Education from Kurukshetra University. Both certificates have been attached with the writ petition as Annexures P-1 and P-2. It is claimed that they fully meet the requirement of advertisement and despite fulfilling the qualification they were not called for interview whereas a large number of other candidates have been issued interview letters on 25.6.2001. It has also been asserted that a large number of candidates who possess the certificate course in physical education from Kurukshetra University have been given appointment as P.T.I. in the Education Department Punjab and they have been working as such. In para No.15, the names of Barjinder Singh son of Late Sh. Jarnail Singh, P.T.I. Government Senior Secondary School, Misser Khanna (Bhatinda) and Ramanpreet Singh son of Sh. In para No.15, the names of Barjinder Singh son of Late Sh. Jarnail Singh, P.T.I. Government Senior Secondary School, Misser Khanna (Bhatinda) and Ramanpreet Singh son of Sh. Nachhattar Singh, who is working in Government Senior Secondary School, Gheri Bara Singh (Bhatinda), have been given and copies of their appointment letters dated 26.9.2000 and 12.10.2000 have been placed on record (Annexures P-6 and P-7). It is claimed that there is no justification for adopting hostile discrimination against the petitioners and the action of ignoring them from participating in interview is violative of Articles 14 and 16( 1) of the Constitution. Further reliance has been placed on the instructions dated 9.5.1960 (P4) issued by the respondent-State of Punjab which recognize the qualification of Certificate Course in Physical Education from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. It has still further been asserted that the State of Punjab discontinued the issuance of Certificate Course in Physical Education from Session 1990-91 on account of directions issued by the Government of India. Accordingly, the courses were to be run by the Universities and not by any Physical College/Institution. Thereafter, the Government of India allowed only Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra in the whole region of Northern India, to run the Certificate Course in Physical Education where the admission is granted purely on the basis of merit. The petitioners have also taken a stand in the replication that the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has been incorporated by an Act of Punjab Legislature being Punjab Act 12 of 1956 and the degrees, diploma and certificate issued by the aforementioned University cannot be de-recognized by the respondent-State of Punjab. 3. In reply, the stand taken by the respondents is that, in pursuance to the instructions dated 15.1 0.1990 issued by the Punjab Government, all Diploma Courses from other States were to be derecognized and, therefore, the petitioners, who have acquired the qualification from Kurukshetra University were not eligible for appointment against the post of P.T.I. It is claimed that the instructions dated 9.5.1960 issued by the erstwhile State of Punjab have been superseded by a letter dated 15.10.1990 (R-l) and the aforementioned letter is equally applicable to the case of Diploma Courses from other States. However, it is admitted that the petitioners have been provisionally interviewed. An additional affidavit dated 25.1.2006 was filed, giving details of the Courses which have been de- recognized by the respondent-State of Punjab, which reads as under: “1. However, it is admitted that the petitioners have been provisionally interviewed. An additional affidavit dated 25.1.2006 was filed, giving details of the Courses which have been de- recognized by the respondent-State of Punjab, which reads as under: “1. J.B.T. Course/E.T.T. Of Haryana State 29.5.2004 2. Rajasthan 15.10.1990 3. Himachal 1992 C.P.Ed. 1. Amarwati 27.10.77 2. Madhya Pradesh 27.10.77 3. Bihar 27.10.77 4. Tamil Nadu 27.10.77 5. Karnataka 27.10.77 6. Uttar Pradesh 27.10.77 Except the course done in 1977-78" 4. Mr. Amit Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that all the petitioners fulfill the educational qualification of Certificate Course in Physical Education, which they have acquired from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. According to the learned counsel, ,there is nothing on the record or in any of the instructions which may show that the aforementioned Certificate Course is de-recognized by the respondent-State of Punjab. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the letter dated 15.10.1990 (R-l) and the averments made in para No.4 of the additional affidavit filed by Sh. R. Venkat Ratnam, IAS, Special Secretary to Government of Punjab. He has also referred to instructions dated 27.10.1977 (R-2) and has argued that in none of the letters/instructions, the Certificate Course by Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has been de- recognized. He has referred to para Nos. 1 and 2 of the instructions dated 27.10.1977 to substantiate his argument. Another submission made by learned counsel is that the Kurukshetra University has been incorporated by an Act of State of Punjab being Punjab Act 12 of 1956. Therefore, and degree certificate issued by Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra cannot be de-recognized. 5. Mr. Rakesh Verma, learned State counsel has made an attempt to persuade me to accept his submission that the letter dated 15.10.1990 written by Secretary, Department of Education to the D.P.I. should be construed to mean that the Certificate Course from Kurukshetra University is deemed to have been de- recognized by the respondent-State of Punjab and, therefore, no appointment on the basis of any such certificate could be granted. However, learned State counsel has not been able to controvert the argument that there is no rule/instructions either revoking the instructions dated 9.5.1960 (P-4) or any such rule or instructions de-recognizing the degree issued by the Kurukshetra - University, Kurukshetra. 6. However, learned State counsel has not been able to controvert the argument that there is no rule/instructions either revoking the instructions dated 9.5.1960 (P-4) or any such rule or instructions de-recognizing the degree issued by the Kurukshetra - University, Kurukshetra. 6. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners, who have acquired qualification of matriculation from Punjab State and Certificate Course in Physical Education from Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra, are fully eligible in accordance with the advertisement dated 29.3.2001 (P-3). According to the advertisement, essential qualifications required for the post of P.T.I. are matric and Certificate Course in Physical Education, recognized by the Punjab Government. The instructions dated 27.10.1977 (R-2) do not contemplate de-recognition of Certificate Course of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra nor there is any other letter/instructions on record to that effect. Moreover, the respondent-State of Punjab has already accepted the Certificate Course in Physical Education from Kurukshetra University as a recognized qualification in respect of other candidates like Barjinder Singh (P6) and Raman Preet Singh (P7). There is no denial of the aforementioned fact except stating that any wrong appointment would not confer any right of selection/appointment on the petitioners. Therefore, the instant petition deserves to succeed. 7. It would be appropriate to examine letter dated 15.10.1990 (R-I). The contents of that letter reads as under: “Copy of memo No.22/14/80-3 Edu.7/8453 dated 15.10.90 from Superintendent Department of Education (Education 7 Branch), to the D.P.I. (P), Punjab, Chandigarh. Subject:- C.W.P. No.2110 of 1990 Smt. Jasbir Sahani v. State of Punjab Reference your memo No.4628-4-31-90-E-I (4)dated 10.9.90 on the subject cited above. The appointment on those candidates may not be given who have done diploma courses from other states. An explanation of DEO (P), Ferozpur be sought, why the appointments were given to the candidates who have done diploma from other states. The Diploma, courses from other State are not recognised by the State of Punjab hence the appointments can not be given to such candidates. Moreover, Diploma of J.B.T. Of Rajasthan is not equivalent to that of Punjab further more no reciprocal arrangement of Punjab Govt. which of Rajasthan exists. The reply may be filed on the above lines.” 8. There is nothing in this letter which would have even remote bearing on the recognition or de-recognition of a certified course of physical education. Moreover, Diploma of J.B.T. Of Rajasthan is not equivalent to that of Punjab further more no reciprocal arrangement of Punjab Govt. which of Rajasthan exists. The reply may be filed on the above lines.” 8. There is nothing in this letter which would have even remote bearing on the recognition or de-recognition of a certified course of physical education. The learned State counsel was merely pursuing a mirage ‘making effort to deceive himself. Therefore, the submission made on the basis of that letter is out rightly rejected. 9. For the reasons aforementioned this petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to accept the qualification of Certificate course from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra as a recognized qualification by the respondent-State of Punjab and those petitioners who have matric from the Punjab State and certificate course in Physical Education, from Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra have be considered eligible. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court on 4.7.2001, the petitioners have already been interviewed and their results deserve to be declared subject to the condition that they fulfill the condition of matric as recognized by Punjab Government. Their certificate course in Physical Education from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra shall also be accepted. The result of the petitioners shall be declared within one month from today and if they are found to be selected, then appointment letters shall be issued to them immediately. The petitioners shall also been titled to all consequential benefits like seniority according to their respective merits. However, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay but their pay shall be fixed by taking into consideration their date of appointment. In other words the successful petitioners shall be given a notional date of appointment which would be the one given to those who were immediate below them, in the merit list and then benefit of pay refixation shall be given to them. Petition stands allowed accordingly.