18 years on, High Court orders consideration of candidates for sewing teachers’ posts

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, March 9

Nearly 18 years after a recruitment notice was issued inviting applications for posts of sewing teacher, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed appeal filed by two candidates before making it clear that they would be considered for placement.

“The present ‘letter patent appeals’ filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioners are a classic example, where in spite of having been within the zone of consideration, the candidates have been denied their right of consideration in spite of the second round of litigation and if no further appeals are filed, they would taste success,” the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji asserted.

Taking up the appeals filed against the State of Punjab and other respondents by Rekha Sharma and Amanbir Kaur through advocates Alka Chatrath, RD Bawa and Dipanshu Kapur, the Bench observed the recruitment notice was issued in December 2006. The claim for the posts was initially raised with the filing of a petition in 2010 by the unselected candidates.

The single judge noticed gross irregularities in the preparation of the selection list. Directions were accordingly issued to dispose of their representations by taking appropriate decision. But the state “in its usual mode” rejected the representation in March 2011.

Acting on a subsequent petition by two candidates, a single judge directed reconsideration of their claim before recasting the merit list and for making appropriate recommendations to the government. The state’s appeal against the order was dismissed as “not pressed” as a Division Bench concluded that there was no direction to interview the candidate. It was only to reconsider the claim and recast the merit.

Two writ petitions filed subsequently were dismissed by a single judge while noting that the court could not compel the state to recruit Amanbir Kaur though she had secured more marks than the last selected candidate. The judge was of the opinion that considerable period had gone by and directions could not be issued to permit the writ petitioners to be considered for appointment. In Rekha Sharma’s case, the single judge observed more than 16 years had passed and posts had been abolished.

In its detailed order, the Division Bench observed the appellants were not at fault in any manner. The fault, rather, was that of the recruiting agency. A document made it clear that there was a mismatch in the result and ineligible candidates were considered, leading to protracted litigation with filing of petitions in 2010 and 2011. “This court had tried to put the selection process on track. Therefore, on account of the fault of the state, benefits and fruits of the litigation cannot be denied to the present appellants.”

Denied right

“The present ‘letter patent appeals’ filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioners are a classic example, where in spite of having been within the zone of consideration, the candidates have been denied their right of consideration in spite of the second round of litigation and if no further appeals are filed, they would taste success,” the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji asserted.