Dilbag Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS

'

'

"

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that during the pendency of the writ petition the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Society, Punjab has been merged with Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan Authority resulting in constitution of new society i.e Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan Authority. Under this Society, the services of the employees, who were earlier working under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme as well as Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan stands taken over by the Education Department, in which the petitioners have, with the creation of the additional posts for their absorption, which exercise has been carried out and wherein options were invited by the Government of Punjab and those teachers who have opted for their services to be taken over by the Punjab Government under the Education Department have been so absorbed in the Education Department.

It has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners have given their consent/option and their services have been regularised w.e.f. 01.04.2018. Let, the State of Punjab file response to the averments as recorded above by the counsel for the petitioner.

List on 23.04.2020.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases."

10.

Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has noticed that the stand of the appellant that even if it was assumed that the appellant was not having the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of ETT, then also under the category of B.Ed.

qualified candidates, his aggregate score came to be 110 (113 as claimed by the appellant). It was thus, noticed by the learned Single Judge to the following effect:- "6. It may be noticed that the petitioner is claiming eligibility as of now on the basis of B.Ed. qualification, which the petitioner had obtained in the Session 2005-2006. It is a conceded position that the respondents had taken a stand that after exhausting all the eligible candidates who fulfill the qualification prescribed for the said post under the rules, in case the advertised posts remained vacant the candidates having B.Ed. qualification were considered on the basis of the merit, which merit list has been separately prepared.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded before this Court that after adjusting all the eligible candidates, who fulfill the qualification required for the post of ETT Teachers as envisaged under the Rules governing the service, the last candidate who was considered on the basis of the qualification of B.Ed., has secured 141.93 marks.

8. That being so, the petitioner even if is considered on the basis of the B.Ed. qualification, he has only secured 113 marks. That being the factual position, the petitioner has not secured

enough marks become eligible for selection even on the basis of B.Ed. qualification keeping in view the number of posts, which remained vacant after adjusting all the eligible candidates having qualification commensurate to the one prescribed in the Rules governing the service to be filled from the candidates having B.Ed. qualification.

9. Keeping in view the said fact, no ground is made out to treat the petitioner eligible or to be within the merit so as to claim appointment against one of the advertised post as being claimed in the present petition."

11.

The sole argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that while deciding the writ petition, the learned Single Judge did not decide upon the validity of the termination order dated 20.03.2013. It may be noticed that after passing of the interim order by the writ Court on 26.03.2013, the appellant was taken back in service. During the pendency of the writ petition, the factum of merging of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Society, Punjab with Rashriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan Authority, came into being and the services of the employees of the said Society were taken over by the State Government. While passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the factum that the appellant was not having the requisite qualification for the post of ETT teacher at the time of his appointment and it was for

this reason that his services were terminated on 20.03.2013, but as noticed above, he continued serving due to the interim order passed by this Court. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge further shows that it was also taken into consideration whether the appellant was eligible to be retained in service being B.Ed. qualified, but it was found that even in the B.Ed. category, the score of the appellant was very low i.e., 110 (113 claimed by the appellant) as against the last selected candidate i.e., 141.93. Thus, even the second ground i.e., B.Ed. qualification did not come to the rescue of the appellant and accordingly, the writ petition has been dismissed.

12.

Once the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the alternative plea of the appellant i.e., B.Ed. degree course, we find no reason to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge did not adjudicate upon the validity of the termination order dated 20.03.2013, whereby the services of the appellant were dispensed with. Still further, reliance of learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) in the case of Sivanandan C.T. and others versus High Court of Kerala and others, reported as 2023 (3) SCC 799, is of no help to the appellant as in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found that after a lapse of six years, it might be difficult to direct either the unseating of the candidates, who had performed their duties and further found that unseating them at that stage would be contrary to the public interest since they had gained experience as Judicial

Officers in the service of the State of Kerala. It was held as under:- "53. The question which now arises before the Court is in regard to the relief which can be granted to the petitioners. The final list of successful candidates was issued on 6 March 2017. The candidates who have been selected have been working as District and Sessions Judges for about six years. In the meantime, all the petitioners who are before the Court have not functioned in judicial office. At this lapse of time, it may be difficult to direct either the unseating of the candidates who have performed their duties. Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public interest since they have gained experience as judicial officers in the service of the State of Kerala.

While the grievance of the petitioners is that if the aggregate of marks in the written examination and viva-voce were taken into account, they would rank higher than three candidates who are respondents to these proceedings, equally, we cannot lose sight of the fact that all the selected candidates are otherwise qualified for judicial office and have been working over a length of time.

over the last six years in the post of District Judge."

13.

In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

14.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.