Meharban Singh vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The petitioner, who is a candidate for the post of English Teacher in general category, has approached this court seeking appointment as such on the ground that he is higher in merit than respondent No. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 14 posts of English Teacher were advertised in December, 2008, out of which six were meant for general category candidates. The petitioner, being eligible, applied for the same. As per the criteria laid down for granting marks for qualification and experience, the percentage of the petitioner came out to be 54.01. The tentative merit list was displayed on the website on 23.9.2009 but the name of the petitioner was not there, though the names of the candidates, who had marks lower than the petitioner, were mentioned. On enquiry from the office, the petitioner came to know that his candidature was not being considered as his experience certificate was not attested by District Level Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner even got the certificate attested. Still in the final merit list, the name of the petitioner was not there, though candidates lower in merit were mentioned, as respondent No. 3 had secured 53.18% marks as against the petitioner, who secured 54.01% marks.

Learned counsel further submitted that on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the experience certificate got attested by the petitioner from District Level Officer of the Punjab School Education Board was not considered as the department required that the certificate should be attested from District Education Officer, whereas there was no such condition in the advertisement which only required attestation from District Level Officer. He further submitted that Punjab School Education Board is also dealing with education and attestation of certificate by the officer of the Board should have been considered valid, once it was not in dispute that the same was by a District Level Officer. Rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on that ground is erroneous, hence, the petitioner deserved to be granted appointment. He further submitted that in case the petitioner is offered appointment, he will not claim any benefit for the period prior to his joining.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the experience certificate produced by the petitioner was rightly not considered as it was not counter-signed by District Education Officer, which was the requirement. He further submitted that even if the petitioner had secured 54.01% marks, which are more than respondent No. 3, but still there can be other candidates in between who have to be offered appointment prior to the petitioner. He further submitted that the certificate got by the petitioner that the officer of Punjab School Education Board, who counter-signed the experience certificate, was of District Level, was later than the last date.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The fact that the petitioner had secured 54.01% marks, whereas respondent No. 3, who was appointed secured 53.18% marks, is not in dispute. The case of the official respondents is that candidature of the petitioner was not considered as the experience certificate produced by him was not counter-signed by District Education Officer. However, in my opinion, the reason assigned is erroneous as Clause 10 of the advertisement provided that the experience certificate should be verified by Labour Inspector/Shop Inspector in case of private organization and by District Level Officer in case of recognized/affiliated under NCVT/SCVT and Polytechnic/Engineering College in Punjab should be verified by the Principal concerned. The aforesaid clause did not provide that the experience certificate should be counter-signed by District Education Officer.

In the present case, the petitioner got his experience certificate counter-signed by the Manager, Regional Office, Punjab School Education Board, Sangrur, who is undisputedly a District Level Officer of Punjab School Education Board. The teaching experience produced by the petitioner in a school, which is affiliated to Punjab School Education Board, hence, its attestation by an officer of the Punjab School Education Board cannot be said to be less authenticated, therefore, rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that his experience certificate was not counter-signed by District Education Officer is held to be illegal and the petitioner deserves to be offered appointment, as the candidate lower in merit has been appointed.

The contention raised by learned counsel for the State that there may be other candidates, who may be higher in merit than the petitioner, hence, he cannot be offered appointment, is merely to be noticed and rejected. It is for the reason that firstly no such data has been produced on record and secondly, the other candidates, if any, were satisfied with rejection of their candidature, whereas the petitioner is fighting for his rights. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The official respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner as English Teacher. Needful be done within two months from the receipt of copy of the order.

As undertaken by the petitioner, he shall not be entitled to any benefit for the period prior to his date of joining.