M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing order dated 13.4.2006 (P -20), passed by the District Education Officer refusing to grant approval to her appointment against a grant -in -aid post of JBT (Science) teacher. A direction has also been sought to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to grant approval to the petitioner and allow her to continue as JBT (Science) teacher. A further direction has been sought for releasing her full pay for the period she has worked from the date of her joining i.e. 4.7.2002 till the date of release of her salary as per the scale admissible to the grant -in -aid JBT (Science) teacher.
(2.) This is infact second round of litigation as the petitioner - Smt. Meenakshi Sidana was respondent in C.W.P. No. 13979 of 2002, wherein the advertisement, selection process and appointment of the petitioner on the post of JBT Teacher was challenged. It is appropriate to mention that apart from the petitioner a number of other persons including Smt. Anita, Sarvshri Udayan Dweser, Jatinder Pal Singh, dalvinder Singh and Rajiv Jindal etc. were also selected and appointed, who have filed C.W.P. Nos. 15599, 2344 and 9791 of 2006, seeking similar relief. That writ petition was dismissed on 16.2.2004 (P -13) by a Division Bench of this Court. Even the Special Leave Petition against the order dated 16.2.2004 (P -13), passed by the Division Bench stand dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 28.11.2005 (P -18). The order of the Division Bench challenging the selection and appointment of the petitioner, who was respondent No. 4 in C.W.P. No. 13979 of 2002 deserves to be extracted in extenso and the same reads as under: Several pleas have been raised by the Petitioner in this writ petition. It has been first contended that the Petitioner, who was a post graduate, was more meritorious than respondent No. 4, who was a mere graduate. We find absolutely no merit in this plea as the Petitioner was a graduate and post graduate in Commerce, whereas respondent No. 4 was a Science Teacher having qualifications of B.Sc. and B.Ed. and as such there could be no comparison between the two. It has also been contended with some vehemence that respondent No. 4 was closely related to Shri Desh Bandhu Bhalla, a member of the Selection Committee and the selection was vitiated on account of bias as well. We find from the record that the relationship inter se respondent No. 4 and Shri Desh Bandhu Bhalla has been admitted, but it has been stated in the written statements filed by both respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 that he had disassociated himself at the time when the Petitioner's case had come up for consideration. Moreover, we find that Besh Bandhu Bhalla aforesaid has not even been impleaded as a party to the writ petition and for this reason as well, no argument can be raised by the Petitioner on this score. The Petitioner has also contended that as per the document, Annexure P -21 dated 27.12.2002, it was clear that the Director, Education Department had not granted approval for the selection. We find that this document had come into being during the pendency of the writ petition and makes interesting reading. We reproduce the contents thereof herein: The appointments which have been made by violating the Government Instructions/Rules, those may not be given any approval, if approval has already been given, then the same be cancelled/rejected. We observe the language to be somewhat extraordinary which does support the plea of the school - Management that there was something untoward in the stand taken by the official respondents. In paragraph 2 of the reply filed by Shri Krishan Chander Kapoor, District Education Officer it finds mention that approval for the selection had been refused because of irregularities in the conduct of the interview, but no details of the irregularities have been spelt out. We accordingly find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.
(3.) Facts are not in dispute. At the instance of Doaba Arya Senior Secondary School, Nawanshahr -respondent No. 4 (for brevity, 'the respondent School') advertisements were published in two English dailies - 'The Indian Express' and 'The Tribune' and twice in the Hindi Daily 'Punjab Kesri' on 25.5.2002 and 27.5.2002 (P -1, P -2, P -3 & P -4 respectively) inviting applications for six vacant JBT/ETT posts. The petitioner being eligible and qualified with B.Sc. (Non - Medical) and B.Ed. degree, applied for the post. An application to this effect was sent on 31.5.2002. She received a call letter dated 20.6.2002 (P -5) for her interview on 27.6.2002. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent School also invited District Education Officer, Nawanshahr, in the meeting of the Managing Committee, which was proposed to be held on 28.6.2002 with the object of confirming proceedings of the Selection Committee (P -6). The Selection Sub -Committee comprising of five members, constituted in accordance with Rule 7(1) of the Punjab Privately -Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981 (for brevity, 'the 1981 Rules') interviewed the petitioner on 27.6.2002. Against all the posts of JBT, 37 candidates had applied and 28 candidates appeared before the Selection Sub -Committee for interview which continued for two days on 27.6.2002 and 28.6.2002. The Selection Sub -Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of JBT (Science). The recommendation of the Selection Sub -Committee were later on confirmed by the Managing Committee of the respondent School in its meeting held on 28.6.2002 (P -7). Accordingly, the selection and appointment of the JBT teachers including that of the petitioner attained finality and the petitioner was issued an appointment letter on 29.6.2002 (P -8). According to the terms and conditions of the appointment letter she was appointed against an advertised post of JBT (Science) and her service conditions were to be governed by the 1981 Rules. She was to be paid salary in accordance with the pay scale of the Government teachers, subject to the grant of approval of her appointment by the D.P.I. (S). The petitioner was asked to execute an agreement with the school authorities that she was not to claim a higher claim except the one admissible to JBT teachers merely on the ground that she possessed higher qualifications. She duly executed the agreement and affidavit and then joined her duty (P -9). She continued to work with sincerity.;