LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Simran Preet Singh (teacher)     14 April 2011

took test,launched marit but didnt call for post

sir,

i need ur help plz suggest us what we do now? on april 2010 ict punjab education department addvertise 826 posts of teachers on contract based they took registration fees from us, allot roll numbers, took test also and generate our marit list also on to their site but didnt call us for counseling. we did writ against them 4 five times they didnt give any reply in the court now they repled and they said we dont have now any post from 826, they said we appointed 400 candidates whom we called from marit and 426 we appointed some other teachers bcoz state govt said us to appoint these candidates sorry for my bad english



Learning

 5 Replies

Amit Pateria (Advocate & Consultant (Law) Supreme Court of India New Delhi)     17 April 2011

Dear Member,

It is well settled condition of law is Service Jurisprudence that the selection process starts from the very date of its  publication and even a slightest deviation from what has been published will viciate the entire process.

In your case you said that a merit list was published and you were not called for the counseling/interview. In this case I would request your good self to contact some good lawyer in your area along with all the documents (I guess you have already done that by filing a Writ). as far as the delayed reply is concerned it's the part and parcel of the judicial dispute resolution system and even we lawyers feel helpless at times.

Simran Preet Singh (teacher)     17 April 2011

thank you sir, actualy there is one more problem in our case that is microscopic reservation means subdevision in our classes they called everyone instead General, BC and SC(Ramdasia & Others) cast, we mostly blongs to General & BC caste, they said we already having many extra candidates in ur catagories so tht we r unable to appoint u but how it is posible they r unable to appoint us, who r applied for these post with registration fee, but they can appoint others teacher who having no relation with this post appointment they all r having same class as we r like general, bc, sc(R&O), please sir suggest us we we can suggest our lawer to handle this case better

 

thnx alot one again sir for giving us ur response 

Amit Pateria (Advocate & Consultant (Law) Supreme Court of India New Delhi)     18 April 2011

Dear Member,

All you have to do is to examin the advertisement for the procidural aspects, there must a system governing interview and appointment.

For specific help would request you to put on the relevant documents i.e. the advertisement, Writ and reply etc.

Regards

Simran Preet Singh (teacher)     19 April 2011

ok sir here i m going to attach our case file and their reply's file 

Simran Preet Singh (teacher)     19 April 2011

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


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query