Punjab Government Denied Appointment to Eligible Candidate

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticized the Punjab government for unlawfully rejecting the appointment of a candidate as a Punjabi master, despite a clear legal precedent in her favor. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi ruled that the mere fact that the positions had been filled could not justify denying the petitioner’s claim, especially since she had filed the petition promptly after the selection process concluded.

Court Orders Reconsideration and Possible Appointment

Justice Sethi directed the Punjab government to reconsider the candidate’s application under the general (sports) category. The state was instructed to grant her an appointment, even if it required creating a supernumerary post, as long as it did not displace candidates already appointed.

The Court further clarified that the petitioner should be appointed from the same date as those with lower merit, although she would not receive any financial benefits until her actual appointment, which must be completed within two months from receiving the Court’s order.

Legal Grounds for the Challenge

Represented by counsel HC Arora, the petitioner challenged the rejection of her candidacy for a general (sports) category position. She had passed the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test (PSTET) with 87 marks under the backward category, but the state required general category candidates to achieve at least 90 marks.

Arora cited the 2016 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Vikas Sankhala vs. Vikas Kumar Aggarwal, which held that candidates from reserved categories could be considered for general category positions if they met the basic eligibility criteria, even if their qualifying marks were lower than those required for the general category.

Court Emphasizes Legal Precedents and Fairness

Justice Sethi underscored that the state’s decision to deny the petitioner’s appointment, despite the established legal principles, was unjust and unlawful. The Court reaffirmed that filling positions could not override the petitioner’s rightful claim, particularly as she filed the petition immediately after the selection process was completed.

Conclusion: Upholding Legal Rights in Government Recruitment

This case highlights the importance of adhering to legal precedents and ensuring fairness in government recruitment processes. It serves as a reminder that eligible candidates should be given due consideration, regardless of administrative decisions that may contradict established legal standards.