Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Suman Kajla vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 May, 2010
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal
CWP No. 6360 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6360 of 2010
Date of Decision: 18.5.2010
Smt. Suman Kajla
....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure P-17) passed by the District Judge, Rohtak, while exercising the powers of Presiding Officer, Educational Tribunal, Haryana, whereby her claim for appointment to the post of PGT (Economics) was declined.
Put shortly, the facts as narrated in the petition are that on 7.11.2000, respondent No.2 had issued advertisement (Annexure P-3) in the "Hindustan Times" inviting applications for the post of PGT (Economics). The petitioner being eligible applied for the said post and was called for interview and thereafter a written test was also conducted. After the due process, she was asked to appear before respondent No.2 vide letter dated 16.2.2001 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner instead of being appointed to the post of PGT (Economics), was offered the post of Teacher Trainee on temporary basis on a fixed CWP No. 6360 of 2010 -2- salary of Rs.3500/- per month for 37 days vide letter dated 20.2.2001 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner continued on the said post till 26.6.2002 when respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 26.6.2002 (Annexure P-6) appointing her on the post of Junior Teacher on probation w.e.f. 13.6.2002. After the petitioner had successfully completed her probation period, she was appointed in the regular pay scale of Rs.4500-7400 w.e.f. 8.7.2003 but she claims that she was entitled to be appointed on the post of PGT (Economics) for which she was duly selected and not on the post of Junior Teacher. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 26.9.2002 and various other representations thereafter for the grant of PGT scale, but instead of granting that scale from the month of August, 2003, a special allowance of Rs.1000/- per month was allowed to her. Thereafter, it was resolved by respondent No.2 that she could be promoted to the post of PGT (Economics) and for this purpose an interview was also conducted on 11.7.2005. The petitioner along with others appeared before the interviewing committee on 11.7.2005. Respondent No.2 vide appointment letter dated 27.3.2006 appointed one Smt. Vineeta Sharma (respondent No.5) on the post of PGT (Commerce) and withdrew the time table of the subject of Economics from the petitioner and assigned the same to respondent No.5. The petitioner sent a legal notice dated 29.3.2006 (Annexure P-11) to respondents No.2 and 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 8528 of 2006 for issuance of a direction to the respondents to appoint her on the post of PGT (Economics). This Court vide order dated 24.7.2007 (Annexure P-14) held that until the State establishes Educational Tribunal, the District Judge shall exercise the CWP No. 6360 of 2010 -3- powers of Education Tribunal and the District Judge, Rohtak was directed to treat the writ petition as service appeal and decide the same in accordance with law. The District Judge, Rohtak vide impugned order dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure P-17) dismissed the service appeal of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record with his assistance.
The petitioner was appointed as Trainee Teacher on temporary basis in the year 2000-2001 and thereafter was appointed as Junior Teacher and was never given the appointment as PGT (Economics). The Educational Tribunal vide its order dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure P-17) has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had appeared before the selection committee on 11.7.2005 but was not promoted as PGT in the subject of Economics. It has also been recorded that the petitioner was never held entitled to the post of PGT (Economics). Thus, she does not have any vested right to get an order of appointment as such. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously laid any challenge to the appointment of respondent No.5 as PGT (Commerce).
In view of the above, no ground for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is made out.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
May 18, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE