Court raps Punjab for denying appointment to candidate despite clear legal precedent

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually admonished the Punjab for unlawfully denying the appointment of a candidate as a Punjabi master, despite a clear and settled legal principle in her favour. Turning down the state’s plea that all vacancies had already been filled up, Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi ruled that the mere filling of the posts could not be used as a justification to deny the petitioner’s claim, particularly since she filed the petition promptly after the selection process concluded.

Justice Sethi also directed the state of Punjab to reconsider the candidate’s application under the general (sports) category. The state was further directed to grant appointment to the petitioner even if it required creating a supernumerary post, if any candidate with a lower rank had been appointed to avoid displacement of those already working.

Justice Sethi ordered: “The petitioner will be given appointment from the date candidates lower in merit have been granted, she will not be given any financial benefit and till her actual appointment – which should be done within two months from receiving the order’s copy.”

The candidate had moved the court through counsel HC Arora challenging the rejection of her candidacy for a general (sports) category position, citing her successful clearance of the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test (PSTET) with 87 marks under the backward category. The State, however, said it required general candidates to achieve a minimum of 90 marks.

Arora referred to the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in the case of “Vikas Sankhala versus Vikas Kumar Aggarwal”, which held that candidates from reserved categories could compete in the general category if they met the basic eligibility criteria, regardless of their lower qualifying marks in TET under the reserved category.

Elaborating, he contended once a candidate had passed PSTET in the reserved category, he could be considered in the general category as well without raising objection that the marks secured by the candidate was less than the one required to clear in the general category.

After evaluating the explanation and the surrounding circumstances, Justice Sethi asserted: “The denying of the appointment to the petitioner despite the settled principle of law in her favour, is an illegal act of the respondents and merely that the posts have been filled up, will not come against the petitioner especially when the petitioner has filed the present petition immediately after the selection process is over.”