Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) The common factor in the case of the petitioners and Mamta Thakur is that both attended counselling on December 13, 2011 in a recruitment drive for appointment of 9998 Teaching Fellows for a tenure of three and a half years on consolidated pay against the post of JBT/ETT lying vacant in the Department of School Education (Primary Wing), Punjab which included 945 posts for District Gurdaspur where the lis lies territorially. The advertisement was issued on September 05, 2007. But what is not common between the two cases is that Mamta Thakur was offered appointment on November 08, 2012 but was not allotted place of posting. It is their common case that the petitioners were not offered appointment while they were placed in merit positions at Sr. No.26, 49, 52, 53, 60 and 67. They plead that they were hopeful that appointment letters will be issued to them but they kept waiting for them. They say that appointment letters were withheld when they were told [not in writing] that Government had put a hold on appointments due to litigation pending in the High Court. This fact is pleaded in para.7 of the petition. The litigation was settled by the Full Bench in Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab, 2013 5 SLR 359; 2013 (3) RSJ 464; 2013 (3) SCT 1. The judgment in Abhishek Rishi was pronounced on April 03, 2013.
(2.) Mamta Thakur approached this Court in CWP No.9197 of 2014. It was decided on December 09, 2014 in her favour with requisite directions issued to the respondents to offer her appointment. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Punjab carried an appeal to the Division Bench in LPA No.560 of 2015. The Division Bench opined on May 19, 2015 that the moot point debated was whether the judgment in Abhishek Rishi was prospective in application. The Division Bench held that Mamta Thakur deserves to be offered appointment since similarly situated persons who were selected and appointed in pursuance to the advertisement dated September 05, 2007 were still working and none of them has been removed on the basis of judgment in Abhishek Rishi. On point of fact it was held that since Mamta Thakur was selected and appointed before the pronouncement of the judgment in Abhishek Rishi therefore she cannot be denied posting, on the ground that subsequently the aforesaid judgment had been rendered by the Full Bench overturning the Division Bench judgment in Sudesh Rani v. State of Punjab, 2010 5 SLR 768 which had upheld grant of bonus marks to candidates from rural areas to be added to the merit of the candidates etc. It was specifically held in appeal against Mamta Rani that "the aforesaid judgment [Abhishek Rishi] is not applicable to the persons already selected and appointed". The State appeal was dismissed. The rights were hauled all the way from selection and appointment. But this is not the case of the petitioners as they were never offered appointment since on their own admission in the petition they were only "hopeful" to get appointment.
(3.) The petitioners claim the same relief as in Mamta Thakur and two other decisions are cited by the petitioners rendered by me in CWP No.21619 of 2013, Jaspreet Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others and five connected writ petitions decided on February 17, 2016 and another decision rendered by me in CWP No.14125 of 2013 in case titled Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others decided on August 17, 2015. Both the writ petitions were filed close at heels after the pronouncement in Abhishek Rishi.;