IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.3102 of 2007
Date of decision: 6.8.2008
Sukhjeet Kaur
-----Petitioner
Vs.
Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and others
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. PS Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. PS Khurana, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
1. This petition seeks a direction to consider the petitioner
eligible for the post of Primary Teacher under The Punjab
Municipal Corporation Primary Teachers (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Rules’).
2. Case of the petitioner is that vide notification dated
22.9.2006, Annexure P.9, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana,
Civil Writ Petition No.3102 of 2007 2
respondent No.1 issued an advertisement for filling up 29 posts of
Primary teachers. Therein, prescribed educational qualification was
10+2, ETT and Punjabi upto Matric. The petitioner did not have
the ETT qualification and could not be considered as eligible.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that under Rule 10(2) of
the Rules (set out in para 6 of the petition), it is mentioned that in
case of non-availability of ETT candidates, candidates having
BA/B.Sc/B.Com and B.Ed qualification will be considered for
appointment to the service. However, such candidates have to
undergo orientation training of six months within five years of
joining service. The petitioner possesses the said qualification but
in the advertisement, the said qualification has not been specified
even in case of non-availability of ETT candidates. Since ETT
candidates were not available and the post remained vacant, the
petitioner was not considered eligible even though the rules make
the petitioner eligible.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not dispute
that one post remained vacant and as per rules, the petitioner was
eligible but as per notification, the eligibility was restricted only to
ETT candidates and in case of non-availability, the alternative
qualification specified in the rules was not mentioned in the
advertisement.
Civil Writ Petition No.3102 of 2007 3
5. In the reply, stand of respondent No.1 is that Selection
Committee decided the qualification and 11 candidates higher in
merit than the petitioner were available.
6. In view of undisputed position that under the rules, the
petitioner was eligible, if no other ETT candidate was available,
denial of the right to be treated as eligible on account of omission
in the advertisement, cannot be upheld. Availability of candidates
with higher merit can also not be a ground not to consider the
petitioner when other candidates have also not been considered.
7. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct that the
petitioner be considered eligible for the vacant post alongwith
other similarly placed candidates and further action may be taken
in accordance with law.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
August 6, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
'gs' Judge