Service Law Matters
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the state department to reconsider the claims of petitioners and grant them seniority and other consequential benefits from 2006—the year they first came under the zone of selection after qualifying as lecturers in Physical Education.
The petitioners had appeared for the recruitment exam for the post of Lecturer (Physical Education). However, despite being higher in merit, they were denied selection while candidates ranked lower were appointed. Among the petitioners, one belonged to the Ex-servicemen category, for which only two posts were advertised. Aggrieved by the selection process, they filed a writ petition (CWP-19-2007) before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2006.
On August 13, 2008, the High Court disposed of the petition with the following directions:
“Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners, at the threshold of consideration, were ousted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, we direct the respondent authorities to consider and determine their comparative merit without disturbing the selection of already appointed candidates. If the petitioners are found more meritorious than the appointed candidates in their respective categories, they shall be appointed forthwith with effect from the date the lower-ranked candidates were appointed, with continuity of service and notional benefits only. If such appointments require the removal of already appointed candidates, it shall be done following due process of law.”
Following this order, candidates who had been placed lower in merit challenged it by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The matter was disposed of on December 12, 2017, after the state counsel assured the court that the affected candidates would be adjusted against available posts.
Subsequently, the present petitioners filed another writ petition (CWP-40598-2018), which was disposed of on February 8, 2019, based on the state’s assurance that their claim would be considered in light of the 2008 judgment. The operative part of the order read:
“Learned State counsel submits that the plea of the petitioner shall be considered in the light of the judgment, Annexure P-6, within six weeks. In case any adverse order is passed, the same shall be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith. In view of the above, no further direction is necessary. Petition disposed of.”
However, instead of complying with the court’s directives, the department rejected the petitioners’ claims on the ground of delay and laches.
During the hearing of the present case, the court sought an explanation from the department for disregarding the High Court’s explicit order. The Assistant Registrar of the Education Department appeared before the court and withdrew the rejection order on the same day. He further assured the court that the matter would be reconsidered within eight weeks in accordance with the judgment passed in CWP-19-2007.
Representation:
The petitioners were represented by Advocate Sukhdev Raj Kamboj and Advocate Arshi.
The State was represented by Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab.
Case Details:
Case Title: Poonam Rana & Another v. State of Punjab & Others (CWP-36328 of 2019)
Decision Date: March 4, 2025
Presiding Judge: Justice Aman Choudhary