Kawaljeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for respondents No.2&3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to allow him to join his duties as Computer Teacher on contractual basis as per the offer of appointment dated 17.08.2008 (Annexure P1). (2). Shorn of the details, the Punjab ICT Educational Society issued an advertisement inviting applications for the posts of Computer Teacher on contractual basis under the ICT Project and

21.04.2008 was the last/cut-off date to apply. CWP No.20097 of 2008.doc - 2 – (3). The petitioner applied on 20.04.2008 and thereafter appeared in the entrance examination held on 08.06.2008. The petitioner qualified the same and was offered appointment vide memo dated 17.08.2008 (Annexure P1) with the following stipulations:-

2. In case, the offer is acceptable on the terms and conditions as contained in the agreement format, you should execute the contract agreement on a non-judicial paper and join duty as Bakhora Kalan Distt. Sangrur, get all the documents verified from the District Education Officer (SE), Sangrur within 15 days from the date of issue of this letter, depending upon the vacancy, failing which it will be presumed that you are not interested and offer will be deemed to have been lapse. xxx

(4). The petitioner was, however, not permitted to join the duties as according to the respondents, he had not acquired the requisite academic qualification before the cut-off /relevant date. (5). The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was pursuing his Bachelor of Computer Application Course from the Punjab Technical University. He had a ‘Re-appear’ in the 4th Semester. He re- appeared in the above-stated examination held in May, 2008. Though he was not possessing the CWP No.20097 of 2008.doc - 3 – requisite academic qualification as on the cut-off date of the advertisement i.e. 21.04.2008, the respondents themselves issued a Circular dated

29.09.2008 (Annexure R2/1) para 2.0 (3), whereof reads as under:-

2.0 On the recommendation of Committee following decisions were taken by higher authorities: (3) Candidates whose result was declared before issuing the appointment letter will be allowed to join at school provided he submits proof from the concerned University.

(Emphasis applied) (6). As soon as the petitioner received the offer of appointment (Annexure P1), he requested the Punjab Technical University to communicate his result confidentially to the District Education Officer (SE), Sangrur, which was actually sent by the University vide memo dated 27.08.2008 declaring the petitioner ‘Pass’ in the 4th Semester. (7). The respondents still refused to permit the petitioner to join his duties on the ground that he was required to produce the certificate of acquiring minimum eligibility by 17th August,

2008. The above-stated plea has been taken by CWP No.20097 of 2008.doc - 4 – the respondents in their additional affidavit dated

11.03.2010 also, which is taken on record and para 2,3&4, whereof reads as follows:- “2. That as per the conditions No.3 of the general conditions referred hereinabove, the candidates whose result was declared before issuance of offer letter/appointment letter (which in the present case was issued on 17.08.2008) were considered eligible and were allowed to join.

Therefore, the cut of date was 17.08.2008 for consideration of candidature of applicant to the post of Computer Teachers and in the next 15 days the fulfillment of eligibility conditions could have been conveyed to the office of the deponent.

That as per the admitted case of the Petitioner, his confidential was declared on 27.08.2008 i.e. after

17.08.2008.” (8). To counter it, the petitioner has produced yet another Certificate from the Punjab Technical University dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P2) certifying that the final result of BCA 4th Semester was ready to be declared on 14th August, 2008. (9). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. (10). There is indeed no denial to the fact that the petitioner appeared in the 4th Semester Re-appear examination held in May, 2008. It further appears that the result was ready for being declared on

14.08.2008 but it was confidentially conveyed by CWP No.20097 of 2008.doc - 5 – the University to the competent authority on 27th August, 2008. (11). The question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the petitioner be treated eligible? (12). In my considered opinion, once the respondents themselves did not adhere to the sanctity of the cut-off date given in the original advertisement and permitted the candidate(s) to submit their eligibility certificates even after issuance of the appointment letters, it would be too unfair to treat the petitioner as ineligible and that too for the reasons which were totally beyond his control. (13). Formal declaration of result by the University was not within the petitioner’s hands. Had the respondents not relaxed the cut-off date, the petitioner would have been ineligible as he appeared in the ‘re-appear’ examination in May, 2008 only. However, the respondents, for the reasons best known to them permitted the candidate(s) to produce the requisite documents “within 15 days from the date of issue of the appointment letter”. The petitioner admittedly produced the ‘result’ within those 15 days. That being so he cannot be treated ineligible for want of the requisite qualification. CWP No.20097 of 2008.doc - 6 – (14). For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed, with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join his duties as Computer Teacher on contractual basis for the remainder of the period. However, it shall be the sole discretion of the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s claim for renewal of the contract, as per the Government policies/Rules. (15). (16). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

16.03.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE