Manorma Devi vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner had applied for the post of Hindi Mistress in pursuance to an advertisement dated 23.9.2009 for filling up a total of 7654 posts of Teaching Personnel in the State Education Department. The petitioner had applied in the Freedom Fighter Category. She was duly selected and was even appointed to the post. The present writ petition has been filed impugning a show cause notice dated 20.9.2013 and endorsed on 24.9.2013 at Annexure P-6 issued by the Director, Public Instructions (S.E.), Punjab in terms of which the merit of the candidates, who had applied under the Freedom Fighter Category is sought to be revised and the services of the petitioner are liable to be terminated.

A perusal of the show cause notice would reveal that the petitioner had been considered as a daughter of a Freedom Fighter, whereas she is infact the grand daughter of a Freedom Fighter. Apparently, it is such mistake which is sought to be corrected. In the show cause notice itself certain instructions of the Punjab Govt. have been referred to, whereby under the Freedom Fighter Category, the sons and daughters of the Freedom Fighters are to be given preference over and above the claim of paternal/maternal grand children of Freedom Fighters.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner is untenable in law inasmuch as the merit list i.e. now sought to be revised and consequently the petitioner being shown at an inferior position is the result of an arbitrary exercise inasmuch as certain candidates, who had secured higher merit position than the last candidate in the General Category, cannot be considered against the Freedom Fighter reserved category and that apart one Sh. Sanjeev Anand, who is also a grand child is being placed above the petitioner by treating him as child of a Freedom Fighter.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the considered view that the present writ petition is premature. All the contentions and submissions raised in the present writ petition ought to be taken by the petitioner in reply to the impugned show cause notice dated 20.9.2013 for which 15 days time has been granted.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner is a mere formality as the decision to revise the merit list and to terminate her services has already been taken.

Be that as it may. The present writ petition is disposed of as not maintainable being premature. It is, however, directed that the reply submitted by the petitioner would be dealt with by the competent authority in terms of passing a reasoned and speaking order. It is further directed that in the eventuality of any adverse order in the nature of termination from service is passed, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the same.

Petition disposed of. A copy of this order be furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of Bench Secretary.