Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurwinder Singh Randhawa vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 July, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13331 of 2011
Date of decision : 27.07.2011
Gurwinder Singh Randhawa ......Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. S.P.S Tinna, Advocate
for the petitioner
****
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
Issue notice of motion On asking of the Court, Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State.
Petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent-department to issue him appointment letter as Primary School Teacher as he has obtained more marks in the General Category whereas the candidates who have scored less marks have been given appointment letters.
Respondent-department issued an advertisement No. 2 in September, 2007 for the recruitment of JBT/EET teachers. For the district Amrtisar 1073 posts were earmarked under Code No. 1071. Petitioner claims to be eligible under the notification and applied for the post. It is alleged that the petitioner got 60.897 marks in the merit list and thus, he was selected under his respective category. The petitioner's case is that he had appeared in the first counseling and his merit was 60.897 and whereas the candidates who are less meritorious have been called up till third counseling and the last candidate who CWP No. 13331 of 2011 -2- was selected was having the merit of 50.506, whereas the petitioner who was more meritorious have been left out (Annexure P-2). The petitioner also received the offer letter dated 29.09.2008 issued by the department and thereafter, he submitted the documents as required by the respondents- department (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that thereafter, no intimation was given to the petitioner regarding his selection. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that the State itself decided to consider all such eligible candidates who could not attend the counseling by calling them in a subsequent counseling vide circular dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure P-4).
It is admitted position that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court of even date passed in CWP No. 7759 of 2011, wherein following observations have been made:-
"In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take decision on the representation of the petitioners in the light of govt. circular (Annexure P-3) and orders (Annexures P-7 to P-10), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the event the posts are available in the respective categories to which the petitioners belong and they are in the merit they may be appointed. However, if the respondents have to reject the claim of the petitioners, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order".
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgment. Petitioner shall be entitled to the same relief as granted in the above referred judgment.
July 27, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE