Suman Lata & Ors. v. Baljinder Kaur & Ors.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

2. Costs deposited. This shall dispose of three petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition No.5438 of 2008 titled ‘Suman Lata & others vs. State of Punjab & others’; Civil Writ Petition No.7240 of 2008 titled ‘Baljinder Kaur & others vs. State of Punjab & others’; and Civil Writ Petition No.11181 of 2008 titled ‘Sukhminder Kaur & another vs. State of Punjab & others’ as they involve common question of law.

3. For reference to record, file of Civil Writ Petition No.5438 of 2008 titled ‘Suman Lata & others vs. State of Punjab & others’ is being taken up.

4. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing selection process followed by the Committee constituted by the respondents CWP No.5438 of 2008 [3] in deference to directions of this Court issued vide Order dated 19.5.2005 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.1926 of 1997 titled ‘Usha Rani & others vs. State of Punjab & others’.

5. The details of the case need not be given in so much as it is the conceded position that the petitioners earlier approached this Court. As many as 67 writ petitions in relation to the same selection were filed which were disposed of vide Order dated 19.5.2005 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.1926 of 1997 titled ‘Usha Rani & others vs. State of Punjab & others’. Order dated 19.5.2005 reads as under:- “We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties who are before us today. We find that in view of the very nature of the fact and the record and the questions raised in this bunch of petitions and also arising out of the report of Sh. R.L. Kalsia, Director, Social Security Women and Child Development, Punjab, Chandigarh, which has been submitted before us in Court, it is not possible for us to examine inter-se claim of the parties, on account of seriously disputed questions of fact but as this matter has been pending in this Court at the motion stage since the year 1997, we deem it appropriate that either the State Government itself or through some Committee, should have the issues examined after hearing all those who are likely to be affected and after giving them an opportunity of filing objections against the report and to take a decision on the issues raised within 12 months from today. Till the Government takes the decision, we direct that the interim orders granted in the present set of Writ petitions shall continue to operate. We also permit all the parties in the writ petitions to file a fresh set of objections, should they so desire, within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.” CWP No.5438 of 2008 [4] ”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners filed a representation which however has not been considered by the respondents. Learned counsel further contends that let the petitioners be heard at this juncture so that they are satisfied.

7. It transpires that the petitioners competed for the post of Anganwari Supervisor. The petitioners were selected. The selection came to be challenged. Under directions issued by this Court, an enquiry was ordered which was concluded by Mr. R.L. Kalsia, Director, Social Security, Women & Child Development, Punjab and report was submitted to this Court.

8. It was found that the merit list prepared was not fair and therefore, a new merit list was re-cast. While the petitioners were shown as selected in the earlier merit list, in the re-caste merit list names of the petitioners do not find mention as per the stand taken by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Para 4 of the Preliminary Objections. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners are lower in merit as per the re-cast merit list.

9. It is also the case of the CWP No.5438 of 2008 [5] respondents that the petitioners submitted a representation on 13.7.2005 through counsel Mr. Kranti Dhir, Advocate. Mr. Dhir, Advocate, sought report submitted by Mr. R.L. Kalsia, IAS, to file detailed objections. Copy of the report was supplied. The representation was made on behalf of the petitioners through counsel on

22.3.2006. Subsequently, representation dated

4.4.2006 was also filed alongwith 97 various applicants. All the points raised were examined by the enquiry committee as would be evident from Enquiry Report, Annexure R-1.

10. It is further the case of the respondents that representation purportedly given by the petitioners (in CWP Nos.7240 and 11181 of 2008) was never received by the respondents.

11. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel.

12. It is not in dispute that selection for the post of Anganwari Supervisor was earlier a matter of challenge before this Court whereupon an enquiry was ordered. As per enquiry report, the merit list was wrongly drawn.

13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not given any offer of appointment, and therefore, per-se would not have right to claim appointment. The petitioners have been given reasons for not giving offer of CWP No.5438 of 2008 [6] appointment as noticed above.

14. It is further the admitted case that as per the re-cast merit list, the selected persons have been given appointment and have already joined way back in 2008.

15. In my considered opinion, because the petitioners have earlier approached this Court and the matter has been examined, no purpose in law or in facts would be served by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to re-open the selection process on the asking of the petitioners. The petitioners were not issued any letters of appointment and were merely selected as per the earlier merit list which was found to have been wrongly drawn, as per the enquiry report, which fact has been considered by this Court in earlier round of litigation on the issue.

16. In view of the above, no ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out.

17. The petitions are dismissed. November 15, 2010 JUDGE (AJAI LAMBA) To be referred to the Reporters or not?

1. 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?