Reena Vashisht v. Hussan Lal & Ors.

this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the said representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order thereon within a period of two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to the relief claimed, the same be also granted to her within the said period.” Upon notice, an affidavit dated 12.10.2012 of Sh. Ram Pal Singh, District Education Officer(EE) Hoshiarpur-respondent No.3 was filed The relevant part of the aforesaid affidavit reads thus: “That in compliance with aforementioned directions given by this Hon'ble Court in civil writ petition No.10186 of 2012 titled as Reena Vashisht Versus State of Punjab. The claim of the petitioner was considered and came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable and a well reasoned detailed speaking order had all already passed by the COCP No.2509 of 2012 3 answering deponent vide Order No.9809-11 dated

28.8.2012. A copy if the same is annexed as Annexure R-1 herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.” A speaking order dated 28.8.2012 rejecting the claim of the petitioner was also attached along with this affidavit. The relevant part of the aforesaid speaking order reads thus: “That the compliance of the above said order given by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh the petitioner's record thoroughly investigated and found that the petitioner applied in the general category in advertisement given by the deptt. in year 2007 to fill up the 9998 posts of teaching fellow. So the petitioner's claim could not be considered under the handicapped category. Besides this the petitioner called by the deptt. taking counselling for the above said posts the petitioner does not considered in the handicapped category because the petitioner/candidate applied in the general category and in the advertisement of the teaching fellow post the terms and conditions given at serial number 13 that the category of any candidate will not be changed to any other category. The petitioner/candidate who applied in which category under this category her name will be considered. So that the claim of the petitioner COCP No.2509 of 2012 4 will not be considered under the handicapped category. In the above said situation after thoroughly investigated the record of the petitioner that the petitioner claim cannot be considered in handicapped category. I Rampal Singh District Education Officer (E.E) Hoshiarpur, after investigating the record of petitioner regarding this case that Smt. Reena Vashisht D/o Sh. Prem Chand, Vill. & Post office Garhi Mansowal, the Garshankar, Distt. Hoshiarpur the claim of the petitioner does not consider under the handicapped category. So I cancel the claim of the petitioner in the handicapped category as teaching fellow.” However, the petitioner disputed the stand taken by the respondents and this Court passed the following order on 16.10.2012: “Non compliance of the order of this Court has been alleged in this petition. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in Court. The same is taken on record. According to the affidavit filed in Court, the order has been complied with by passing a speaking order. However, counsel for the petitioner states that the speaking order is based upon on false COCP No.2509 of 2012 5 facts. List on 1.11.2012. Let the respondents be present in Court along with record on the date fixed. To be shown in the urgent list.” Thereafter, the following order was passed on 1.11.2012: “Records have been perused. The contents of the affidavit filed are absolutely in conflict with the record. Shri Ram Pal Singh deponent who has filed this affidavit, has tendered unconditional apology and has assured the Court of the remedial steps by complying with the order and offering appointment to the petitioner under the physically handicapped category. Considering the aforesaid stand of respondent No.3, I deem it appropriate to adjourn the matter to 2.11.2012 for further proceedings with an expectation that the situation would be redeemed by the respondents in order to purge the contempt. The presence of respondent No.1 is exempted. However, respondents No.2 and 3 shall be present in person. To be shown in the Urgent List.” At this stage, the order dated 2.11.2012, 5.11.2012 and COCP No.2509 of 2012 6

8.11.2012 be also noticed:

2.11.2012 “Vide order dated November 1, 2012, respondents No.2 and 3 were ordered to be present in Court. However, respondent No.2 is not present despite the specific orders passed in the presence of learned State counsel. Moreover, no additional affidavit has been filed. It shows the defiant attitude on the part of the respondents. Let presence of respondent No.2 be secured by way of bailable warrants for 5th November, 2012. The secretary, Department of Education, Punjab shall also be present in Court on the date fixed.”

5.11.2012 “Ms. Ravneet Kaur, n Secretary, Department of Education, Punjab is present in Court. Respondent No.2, whose presence has been secured by way of bailable warrants, is also present in Court. A short adjournment is sought on behalf of the respondents to file an affidavit explaining their conduct. Learned State counsel has further produced before this Court an office order dated COCP No.2509 of 2012 7

01.11.2012, which is in vernacular (Punjabi), along with its translation. The same is taken on record. List on 8th November, 2012. Personal appearance of Ms.Ravneet Kaur, Secretary, Department of Education, Punjab in Court is exempted till further orders.”

8.11.2012 “Reply by way affidavit of Sh. Avtar Singh, Director of Public Instructions (Elementary Education), Punjab, has been filed in Court. The same is taken on record. The said respondent has tendered unconditional apology for his lapse of not appearing before this Court on 2.11.2012 and has further undertaken to be careful in future. Apology is accepted. Though the respondents have placed on record an office order dated 1.11.2012 whereby the petitioner has been offered appointment under the category of Physically Handicapped (Ortho) yet Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has produced before this Court the original application forms of petitioner-Reena Vashisht as well as of Mrs. Meenu Rani along with three envelopes in which these application forms were sent. Photocopies of the said COCP No.2509 of 2012 8 documents are taken on record and the originals are returned to the State Counsel. Learned State counsel has submitted that in fact the petitioner had applied under the General category only and has never applied under Physically Handicapped category and according to the learned State counsel, the words “Physically Handicapped (Ortho)” in Column No.13 appears to have been added later on after word “General”. Learned State counsel seeks short adjournment to file an additional affidavit. List on 12.12.2012.” Today, an additional affidavit of Sh. Avtar Singh, Director of Public Instructions (Elementary Education) Punjab-respondent No.2, has been filed in Court. The same is taken on record. Along with this additional affidavit, an enquiry report has been attached as Annexure R-1. As per the aforesaid enquiry report, the respondents have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had applied in General Category (Female) and further that the petitioner had managed to add words “Physically Handicapped Orthopaedic” after the word “General” in the application form against the column of Category with the connivance of some official of the Department against whom the action is being initiated. The relevant part of the affidavit reads thus: COCP No.2509 of 2012 9 “That it is submitted that to verify into the factual position as to whether petitioner had applied for the post of Teaching Fellow in General Category or in Handicapped category, the District Education Officer (E.E.) Mohali was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide letter No.03/258-2012 Estt. 2 (1) dated 21.11.2012. The said Enquiry Officer has submitted his report letter No.Steno/DEO/2012/1875 dated 07.12.2012. The contents of the same were considered and accepted by the answering deponent. The copy of the said Enquiry Report approved by the answering deponent and the same is attached herewith as Annexure R-1.

4. That it is submitted that the conclusion of the report of Inquiry is that the petitioner Smt. Reena Vashisht had applied in her application form dated 10.09.2007 in General Category and not in Handicapped category. The Application Form submitted by the petitioner shows that she had applied in General Category. The envelopment submitted by the petitioner along with the application form shows that she had applied in General Category. The handwriting in the application form and envelopes is same.

5. That it is pertinent to mention here that first counselling for the post of Teaching Fellow in the COCP No.2509 of 2012 10 Handicapped Category was held on 23.03.2008. Before that objections were invited regarding category mistake if any on the web site “dpi punjab.org”. The list was also displayed in the office of the District Education Officer (Elementary Education) Hoshiarpur. The petitioner had not participated voluntarily having not applied in the said category. The next counselling for the Handicapped Category was held on 13.12.2011, before this she had managed to fabricate her application form with the connivance of the officials of the department. That it is submitted that the fabrication has been made in the Application Form (Annexure ER-1) of the Inquiry Report by the petitioner in connivance with the officials of the department for which Departmental action shall be initiated with permission of the Hon'ble Court as the matter is sub judiced in the Hon'ble Court.” In view of the facts which have come on record, this Court is not inclined to proceed further with this contempt petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Needless to say that the respondents are at liberty to withdraw the appointment letter dated 1.11.2012, which has been issued to the petitioner allegedly on the basis of wrong facts, in accordance with law. December 12, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE COCP No.2509 of 2012 11