JUDGMENT
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. We nave heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the controversy raised in the present writ, petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment or this Court in the case of Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors., rendered in CWP No.5991 of 1997 decided on 1.7.1997.
3. The petitioner passed the two years JBT Home Craft Course from Industrial Training Department, Haryana on 20.3.1980. She completed six months JBT Condensed Course conducted by Haryana Education Department on 1.4.1983. On 11.5.1995 she was appointed JBT Teacher on adhoc basis. She continued as such till 13.11.1997. On 8.1.1996, the respondents issued advertisement to fill 7000 posts or JBT teachers. The petitioner made the necessary application and she was called to appear for interview on 2.8.1996. in the initial advertisement, the upper age limit was 34 years as on 1.1.1996. Since the petitioner was 41 years of age on the relevant date, her candidature was not considered. Subsequently, the upper age limit was increased from 34 years to 42 years. In view of the change in the upper age limit, respondent No.3 published a corrigendum on 17.10.1996 inviting applications from candidates who could not apply due to being over age on the basis or the earlier advertisement. The petitioner was found to be eligible on the basis of the corrigendum. But she did not appear at the interview which was held on 19.3.1997. It is not disputed by the respondents that no separate letter of invitation was sent to the petitioner regarding the fresh interview. Her position in the merit is not denied.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Manjit Kaur (supra). In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows:-
“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the petitioner has. been discriminated by the respondents by not being considered for the purpose of selection and appointment as JBT Teacher. Admittedly, the petitioner had applied for recruitment in response to the advertisement dated 8.1.1996. She was called for interview vide letter dated 13.7.1996 issued by the respondent District Primary Teachers Selection Committee, Hoshiarpur, However, her candidature was not considered on the ground of over-age. Subsequently, the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates were given opportunity of selection because of increase in the upper age limit from 34 years to 42 years. However, this time, the petitioner was denied consideration due to lack of intimation regarding date of interview. Learned Deputy Advocate-General candidly admitted that no separate interview letter was issued to the petitioner but argued that she should have appeared for interview on the basis of notice published in the vernacular paper. In our opinion, the intimation about the date, time and place of interview by means of publication in the newspaper cannot be equated with an intimation which is required to be given to the eligible candidates because the candidates were never told that they must look for such intimation in a particular newspaper. Annexure P5 which is an advertisement issued by the Coordinator of the Selection Committee does not disclose that the candidates were told that they will not be given separate information regarding the date, time and place of interview or that they will have to keep a vigil on the publication in the newspaper. In view of this, we have no hesitation to hold that the denial of consideration to the petitioner for recruitment as JBT Teacher is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of her fundamental right of equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”
5. In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to arrange for interview of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner is selected, she shall be placed at an appropriate place in the merit list/select list and the appointing authority shall consider her case for appointment in accordance with her placement in the merit list/select list. No costs.