Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.3414 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:
18. h December, 2012 Manjit Kaur Petitioner Versus Ravneet Kaur and another Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.M.C.Berry, Addl.
Advocate General, Punjab.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
(ORAL) Non-compliance of the order dated 23.01.2012 passed by this Court in CWP No.1267 of 2012 has been alleged in this contempt petition.
Upon notice, reply by way of a short affidavit of Kamal Kumar, Director Public Instructions (Secondary Education).Punjab- respondent No.2 has been filed in Court, which is taken on record.
Relevant part of the aforesaid affidavit reads thus: “3.
That in compliance with the above order of the Hon’ble Court the claim of the petitioner has been reconsidered and rejected vide order dated 17.10.2012 (A copy of this order is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1).The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Vocational Mistress (Food Preservation) in pursuance to the advertisement dated 23.09.2009.
COCP No.3414 of 2012 (O&M”
4.
That in order to determine the merit and eligibility of the candidates along with petitioner a public notice, containing the Schedule of the 2nd Phase of Counseling was published in various News Papers on 28.06.2011.
The 2nd Phase of the counseling in pursuance to the public notice dated 28.06.2011 has been conducted from 06.07.2011 to 11.07.2011 as per the schedule, which was published vide Public Notice dated 28.6.2011.
The appointment letters to all the selected candidates, in furtherance of this Public Notice dated 28.6.2011 has already been issued.”
5. That the selection process in pursuance of advertisement 23.9.2009 has been carried out by the Chairperson, Departmental Selection Committee (Teaching).Departmental Selection Committee (Teaching) constitutes the representatives of various other departments such as Social Welfare Department, Sainik Welfare Department and Sport Department of Punjab.”
6. That the petitioner herself has admitted in her representation that she remained absent from the scrutiny of their original documents.
The petitioner has submitted in her representation dated 09.10.2011 that she was not feeling well at the time of counseling.”
7. That the schedule of second phase of counseling was published in the leading newspapers well in time.
This schedule was well in notice of all the candidates along with petitioner.
There are many other candidates in various other subjects, who also did not attend the counseling.
The claim of even such absentees have not been considered by the Department.
If the claim of such absentees considered at this time, then the department has to revise entire selection process to accommodate such absentees.
Further, if the department revised this selection process by considering such absentees, then the services COCP No.3414 of 2012 (O&M) 3 of candidates, who could not make a place on this revision have to be dispensed with.
Hence, the merit and eligibility of the petitioner could not be determined by the competent authority as the petitioner remain absent from the scrutiny of their original documents.
Further, the selection process in furtherance of advertisement dated 23.9.2009 has already been completed.
Hence, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered at this belated stage.”
In view of the speaking order dated 30.08.2012, as endorsed on 17.10.2012, considering the claim of the petitioner and rejecting the same, having been passed, this Court is not inclined to proceed further with this petition.
Ordered accordingly.
Needless to say, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the aforesaid speaking order dated 30.08.2012 in accordance with law.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE December 18, 2012 rps