IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.21431 of 2008
Date of Decision: October 29, 2009
Sunita Devi
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. J.S. Verka, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy
Advocate General, Punjab, for the
respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This petition has been filed under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondents to declare
name of the petitioner as included in the
selection list of candidates under backward class
category.
It has been pleaded that the
petitioner belongs to backward class category.
The respondents advertised 4000 posts of teachers
in various subjects vide Advertisement dated
CWP No.21431 of 2008 [2]
29.8.2007, on contract basis till 2011 on fixed
pay. 33 posts were to be filled for Hindi
mistresses from backward class.
It has been asserted that the
petitioner applied under general category as also
under backward class category. The claim of the
petitioner has been considered in the general
category whereunder however, the petitioner did
not come in merit whereas in backward class
category, the claim of the petitioner has not
been considered at all.
The issue that remains to be
addressed is whether the petitioner applied in
backward class category and the candidature of
the petitioner in that category was considered or
not?
In assertion of the fact that the
petitioner had applied in general category as
also in backward class category, learned counsel
has referred to Annexure P-10 and P-11 that are
two postal receipts indicating two set of
documents having been sent by speed post to the
respondents. On a specific query of the Court,
learned counsel for the petitioner has not been
able to satisfy the Court as to how two postal
receipts addressed to DPI (ODSC) Chandigarh would
be an evidence of the fact that the petitioner
CWP No.21431 of 2008 [3]
had applied under general category as also under
backward class category. The contention therefore
is rejected as no presumption is attracted that
would per se show application also under B.C.
category.
The other documents to which
reference has been made, are Annexure P-13 and
P-14.
Annexure P-13 reads as under:-
“Token No. M/280
Dated : 1.4.2008”
Annexure P-14 reads as under:-
“Token No : 70 (seventy)
Name : Sunita Devi
Father’s Name : Sh. Sudesh Kumar,
Date : 11.4.2008.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner
has not been able to substantiate the claim of
the petitioner as to how the documents extracted
above would indicate that the petitioner had
applied to compete in general category, as also
in backward class category. Learned counsel
further has not been able to explain the
relevance of tokens in the context of his claim
and issue raised before this Court.
In such circumstances, I am of the
considered opinion that documents Annexure P-13
and P-14 cannot be considered as evidence of the
CWP No.21431 of 2008 [4]
fact that the petitioner had applied under
backward class category also.
Learned counsel has laid stress on
Annexure P-15 to show that it is a Form filled by
the petitioner under backward class category as
is evident from first line of the document.
Learned counsel for the respondents
has produced the record in original.
Learned counsel for the respondents
has pointed out that Annexure P-15 is not an
application form. It is only a `check list’ of
the documents submitted by the petitioner.
Against category `BC’, the officials have made a
note in the following terms:- “not applied in backward
class category but in general under Registration. No.103676”.
Learned counsel for the respondents
has even produced the original application filed
by the petitioner. In column No.10, `general’ has
been entered against category under which the
petitioner applied. Registration Number at the
top of the form in red ink reads `F – 103676′.
On this third issue raised on
behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the
petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court
as the document in original indicates that indeed
the petitioner not applied under backward class
category.
CWP No.21431 of 2008 [5]
Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the persons who had checked the form
in the check list namely Nand Gopal and Paramjit
Singh were required to file specific affidavits
in regard to the claim of the petitioner.
Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is rejected out-right in so much
as original record has been produced which is
contrary to the stand of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents
has referred to Annexure R-2 filed alongwith
written statement, in which the petitioner has
addressed a letter dated 7.10.2008 to Chairman,
Departmental Selection Committee, Punjab, which
reads as under:-
“Respectfully, it is requested that I applied for
Hindi/ Female/ B.C. Category against 4000 B.Ed. teachers
posts advertised by your department. My Registration No.
Is F040-103676, as Sunita Devi D/o Sh. Sudesh Kumar.
On 11.4.08, Your office had called to Kapurthala for this
post, for Proforma Checking and Point Confirmation and I
was present. My all certificates were Checked and Merit
Point for Regd. No.F040103676 was confirmed to be
65.760 but even then my name is not at place in the list of
selected candidates.
Kindly enquire into the reason and give appropriate
direction. I am attaching copies of my certificates.”
It becomes evident that the
petitioner asserted her right to be considered
under backward class category, however, while
referring to Registration No.F040-103676. Perusal
of record in original indicates that Form Number
CWP No.21431 of 2008 [6]103676 has been registered under general category
on the application of the petitioner that was
made for consideration under general category. In
Column No.10 of the Application Form, in the
category column, the petitioner has declared
`General’.
In this view of the matter, I am of
the considered opinion that the petitioner indeed
had applied only under general category. The
candidature of the petitioner was considered in
that category. The petitioner could not make it
in so much as merit points of last person
selected in general category are 67.705. Merit
points given to the petitioner, however, are
65.760.
The petition is totally frivolous
in so much as no relevant document has been
placed on record to indicate that the petitioner
indeed had applied under backward class category.
The documents on which reliance has been placed,
are dehors the issue raised in the petition.
The petition is without any merit
and is dismissed with costs Rs.7,000/-.
(AJAI LAMBA)
October 29, 2009 JUDGE
avin
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
CWP No.21431 of 2008 [7]