JUDGEMENT
Rajiv Narain Raina, J. -
(1.) SHORT affidavit of Pardeep Kumar Agrawal, Director General School Education, Punjab filed in Court today is taken on record.
(2.) MR . Shekhar Verma, on instructions from Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Law Officer, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) present in Court, submits that the first counselling was done according to separate male and female lists of candidates which was not correct. The second counseling was the result of the decision of this Court in Neelam Rani v. State of Punjab; 2010 (1) SCT 588 which declared gender based seniority lists as unconstitutional. There could only be a joint list of men and women. The judgment was made to run prospectively. There can be no doubt that the second counseling was done after the decision was rendered in Neelam Rani's case. This judgment had altered the lists which had to be amalgamated and, therefore, the second counseling was required. It is, however, not disputed that the reason for merger of lists of both male and female candidates was not published or put in public domain and, therefore, the candidates were not made aware of the real reasons for the second counseling. Resultantly, Sonia Sharma [petitioner No. 4] did not appear in the second counseling although she had appeared in the first counseling process. If she had appeared in the first counseling process and was not informed of the reasons for the second counseling process, she may have remained under the impression that her effort in the first counseling held good. Especially when, the process was only meant for scrutiny of documents and nothing more since it was not in the nature of interview towards the selection criteria. Then the scrutinized documents would hold good till the end of the recruitment process and she may not have been required to appear in the second counseling. This explains her absence in the second counseling. So far as the other petitioners are concerned, a few events and disputed facts have crystallized which may be noticed. The principal fact from those events is that when the advertisement was issued online inviting applications for the post of Hindi Masters/Mistresses, the candidates were required to keep track of the selection process through the notified official website of C -DAC, which was the recruiting agency appointed by SSA for making recruitment on its behalf. In the advertisement/public notice, there was no mention that candidates would have to keep track of the process on the official website of the SSA and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be disadvantaged by failing to follow the recruitment process on the website of SSA, i.e., http://ssapuniab.org in addition to website of C -DAC i.e. http://recruitment.cdacmohali.in.
(3.) MR . R.K. Arora appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioners bearing CWP No. 2974 of 2011 decided on 17th February, 2011 [P -12] when the following directions were issued which are reproduced in extract from the operative part of the order:
"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the above stated plea taken by the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioners for their appointment as Hindi Teachers sympathetically against the available vacancies and also keeping in view their merit position. Suffice it to say that if the counseling is meant only for verifying the genuineness of the certificates/documents and willingness of the candidates, the petitioners would appear as and when called for by the authorities and would produce the relevant documents. It is also directed that if respondent No. 2 decides to appoint them, the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim back wages. A speaking order in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Till then, six posts of Hindi Teachers shall be kept reserved.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.";
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.