here is that reply:
IN THE COURBT FOR THE SATATE OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA
CHANDIGARH
In CWP No.12073 of 2010
Jaskaran kaur Petitions
Vs.
State of Punjab Respondents
Counter Affidavit of Gurmej Kainth Deputy State Projectirector SSA, on behalf of Responent No. Director general Education Punjab-Cum-I.C.T Education Society,
S.C.O.No 104-106,2nd Floor,Sector 34-A Chandigarh.
I, the above –named deponent do hereby solemnly declare and affirm on oath as under:
Preliminary Submissions:
1. That the present writ petition has been fied on the premises that the impugned advertisement provides for 100% reservation for particular reserved categories and it further provides for microscopic reservation.This is faculty incorrect and correct facts have been explined hereinafter in the following paragraphs.
2. that the answering respondent represents Punjab Information and Communication Technology Education Society which is the State of Punjab owned project and aims Imparting Computer Education to students of Government Schools in Punjab.
3. That for the aforesaid objective from time to timet the answering respondent advertises vacancy of Computer Teachers and vacancies are filled up as per guideline s issued by the Social Welfare Department, Punjab.
4. That however, in 2009-2010 it came to the notice of answering reponent tht out of the total strength of teachers, representation of certain reserved categories was less than the required number.The precise position of vacant and filled up posts of teachers as on the date of impugned advertisement was as under:
TABLE:A
|
Sr.No
|
Category
|
Reservation as per
Punjab Govt.() Punjab
|
Seats
(%age wise)
|
No.of seats
(Round Off)
|
Filled
Posts
|
Vacant Posts
|
|
1.
|
General
|
50
|
3586
|
3586
|
4356
|
770
|
|
2.
|
Schedulesd
Caste”M& B”(102)
|
10
|
717.2
|
718
|
232
|
486
|
|
3.
|
Schedulesd
Caste”R& O”(103)
|
10
|
717.2
|
718
|
795
|
-77
|
|
4.
|
Schdule caste Ex-Servicemen Self “M&B”(104) and Scheduled Caste Ex-servicemen Dependent “M& B”(106)
|
2
|
143.44
|
143
|
1
|
142
|
|
5.
|
Scheduled caste ex-servicemen self “R &O”(105) and Scheduled caste Ex-servicemen dependent “R&O”(107)
|
2
|
143.44
|
143
|
13
|
130
|
|
6.
|
Schduled caste Sportsmen “M & B”Grade-A (108) , Scheduled caste sportsmen “R&O”
Grade-A(109), Scheduled caste sportsmen”M &B” grade –B(110), scheduled caste sportsmen “R& O” Grade-B(111)
|
1
|
71.72
|
71
|
2
|
69
|
|
7.
|
Backward class(112)
|
10
|
717.2
|
717
|
774
|
-57
|
|
8.
|
Backward class Ex SM self (113), Backward class Ex SM ServiceMen(114)
|
2
|
143.4
|
144
|
17
|
127
|
|
9.
|
Ex-Service self(115),Ex-servicemen dependent(116)
|
7
|
502.24
|
502
|
144
|
358
|
|
10.
|
Spotsmen (Grade-A)(117),Sportsman
(Grade-B)(118)
|
2
|
143.4
|
143
|
11
|
132
|
|
11.
|
Freedom fighter self(119), freedom fighter son/daughter(120), freedom fighter grand children(121)
|
1
|
71.72
|
72
|
50
|
22
|
|
12.
|
PH(V)(122),PH(O)(123)
P(HH)(124)
|
3
|
215.16
|
215
|
74
|
141
|
|
13.
|
Total
|
100
|
7172.12
|
7172
|
6469
|
1607
|
5. That therefore ,with an objective to provide proper representation to all the classes, an attempt was made up certain posts from those categories whose representation was less than the required number.
6. The posts required to be filled up from certain classes is much more then the posts advertised and this is due to financial constraints and aim was to gradually fill up posts over a period of the time so that there is equal representation of all the classes from the society. Therefore, the posts which were ultimately advertised as under:
TABLE-B
|
Scheduled Case “M & B”
|
249
|
|
Scheduled caste Ex-Service Self & Dependent “M & B”
|
73
|
|
Schedule caste Ex-servicemen self & dependent “R& O”
|
67
|
|
Scheduled Caste Sportman “M & B” Grade-A ,Grade ”B”
Schedule Caste Sportsman “R &O” Grade-A ,Grade “B”
|
36
|
|
Backward Class Ex SM Servicemen Self & dependent(113)
|
65
|
|
Ex-Servicemen and Dependent(115)
|
184
|
|
Sportsman self and Dependent (115)
|
68
|
|
Freedom fighter Self/son/daughter/grand children(119)
|
12
|
|
PH(O)/,PH(V),/PH(HH)(122)
|
72
|
|
Total
|
826
|
7. That in so far allegation of existence of certain vacant posts is concerned it is submitted that initially vacant posts of 826 were mentioned in th impugned advertisement without considering 400 substitute computer teachers who were working on purely stop gap arrangement.
However,after issuances of the imunged advertisement, these
400 substitute teachers represented to the State Government and were subsequently allowed to continue their duties and therefore, later on only 426 posts were filled out of advertised 826 posts.
On Merits:
1. That the contents of the paragraph no.1 are denied to the extent that no cause of action has arisen in the favour of the Petitioners to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under article 226/227 of the constitution of India.
2. That the contents of the paragraph no.2 are admitted to the extent that advertisement at Annexure P-1 was issued by the answering respondent . Rest of the contents are denied as incorrect.
3. That the contents of the paragraph no.3 are a matter of record.
4. That the contents of the paragraph no.4 are a matter of record.The results was declared on 25.06.2010 and was made public tothwith by publishing the same in the leading newspapers and internet site of society and candidates were called for counselling on 29.06.2010 and 30.06.2010 . In advertisement at Annexure P-1 it was made clear that applicants were advised to visit the internet site of society regularly for updates. In any case, it is not case of the Petitioners that they were not aware of the result.
5. That the Petitioners were rightly not called for counselling as they were not eligible for the posts. The answering respondent considered only those candidates who were more meritorious than the Petitioners and were also otherwise eligible as per reservation quota. It appears that Petitioners have wrongly mentioned that allegedly 101 posts were meant for General Category.
6. That the contents of paragraph number 6 are denied as incorrect . The candidates were called for Re-counsellingand represented in this regard. The candidates being in large number could have been denied recounselling.The confusion appers to have occurred because of early declaration of the result.
7. That the contents of paragraph no.7 are denied as incorrect.
8. That the contens of paragraph no.8 are denied as wrong and sub-paragraph wise reply as under:
· The contents of the sub-paragraph (a) are denied as wrong.
· The contents of the sub-paragraph (b) are a matter of3record.
· The contents of the Sub-paragraph (c) are denied as incorrect.Moreover ,this ground is without corresponding pleadings in the body of the writ petition and therefore legally not maintainable.
· The contents of the sub-paragraph (d) are denied as incorrect.
· The contents of the sub-paragraph (e) are denied as incorrect.
9.That no question of law arises in the present writ petition which requires kind consideration of this hon’ble court.
10. That the contents of the paragraph no.10 are denied to the extent that no cause of action has arisen in the favour of the Petitioners to invoke extraordinary jurisf\diction of the Hon;ble court under article 226/227 of constition of India.
11. That the contents of paragraph no.11 are denied for want of knowledge.
Chandigarh
Date: 20-3-2011 Deponent
