Gurdev Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajai Lamba, J.—This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the appointment of Respondent No. 4 (Pradeep Singh) as Knitting Instructor.

In the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner, appointment of Respondent No. 4 has been made from unreserved category whereas the said post was required to be filled by reserved category candidate.

The petition further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on regular basis, she being from reserved category.

The facts as have been brought out are that the Petitioner has the qualification of Matriculation, one year Knitting Course, one year cutting & tailoring course and one year Craft Teacher Training course. The Petitioner was appointed vide Order dated 8.10.1986 (AnnexureP-1) on purely temporary basis on leave vacancy for six months. The Petitioner, however, was allowed to continue up to 16.9.1987. On account of termination of services, the Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4912 of 1989. The Respondents took the stand before this Court that the Petitioner had been appointed against a leave vacancy and on re-joining of the regular employee services of the Petitioner were to be dispensed with. The petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 5.9.1989.

It has been pleaded in the petition that the Respondents gave a wrong reason to this Court. Mr. Devinder Kumar, against whose leave vacancy the Petitioner had been appointed, had not joined, rather a fresh selection wasconducted wherein the Petitioner has not been selected.

It has been brought out that services of Devinder Kumar, Knitting Instructor in whose place the Petitioner had been appointed had been terminated and the post has been filled on regular basis.

Learned Counsel contends that the post was required to be filled from reserved category and not from unreserved category. Pradeep Singh (Respondent No. 4) has been appointed who is from unreserved category where as the Petitioner belongs to reserved category.

The stand of the Respondents in the written statement is that the Petitioner was taken in employment on temporary basis in a stopgap arrangement, against leave vacancy of Devinder Kumar. Services of the Petitioner were dispensed with w.e.f. 16.9.1987.

Later on vacancy was caused on account of termination of services of Devinder Kumar, Knitting Instructor w.e.f. 2.8.1987. Employment Exchange was notified for filling up the post on regular basis. The candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange along with Petitioner were interviewed on 17.7.1987 by Departmental Selection Committee. The Petitioner could not be selected by the Committee as per the merit list drawn. Respondent No. 4, Pradeep Singh was selected and appointed as Knitting Instructor directing the Respondents to appoint the on regular basis, she being basis, reserved category.

It has been argued that on regular Knitting Instructor, services of the Petitioner were dispensed with. selection of Pradeep Singh by regular Departmental Selection Committee, the Petitioner cannot possibly have any grievance.

In regard to reserved post, it has been pleaded that there were only four posts of Knitting Instructor sanctioned in the cadre of Government Industrial School. Out of the four posts, only one post was to be reserved for candidate(s) belong to scheduled caste. Roster point No. 1 which was reserved for scheduled caste candidate, was filled by appointment of a candidate belonging to scheduled caste in the year 1970. The fourth point in the Roster falls to the share of unreserved category and the same has been filled up on appointment of Pradeep Singh (Respondent No. 4).

I find that a number of opportunities were given to the Petitioner to file replication, particularly to the averments contained in Para 10 of the written statement that reflect the stand point of the Respondents in regard to the fact whether the post was required to be filled by a person from reserved category. No replication has been filed to indicate a factual position different from the one brought out from the written statement, and there fore, the pleadings contained in the written statement have to be accepted as reflecting the correct factual position.

On consideration of the pleadings and the arguments, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner was taken in job on temporary basis against a leave vacancy. Post was filled by way of regular selection. The Petitioner compete dhow ever could not make it in merit. Pradeep Singh(Respondent No. 4) has been appointed against unreserved vacancy as per Roster point. As per the written statement, the post was required to be filled by a person from unreserved category as per the Roster. The Petitioner has not placed on record any material by way of rules, instructions or Roster to point out that the post was required to be filled from reserved category. In such circumstances, no illegality can be traced in the action of the Respondents in filling the post byway of regular appoint of a person from among stunre served category.

In view of the above, no ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out.

The petition is dismissed.