High Court’s Decision on Appointment Denial
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has criticized the Punjab government for unlawfully denying a candidate’s appointment as a Punjabi Master, despite clear legal principles supporting her case. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi rejected the state’s argument that all vacancies had been filled, ruling that the mere filling of positions could not justify denying the candidate’s claim, particularly as she filed her petition promptly after the selection process concluded.
Court Orders Reconsideration of Candidate’s Application
Justice Sethi directed the Punjab government to reconsider the candidate’s application under the general (sports) category. The Court further instructed the state to appoint the petitioner, even if this meant creating a supernumerary position, as long as no existing employee would be displaced.
In the ruling, Justice Sethi stated: “The petitioner should be appointed from the same date as candidates with a lower rank. However, she will not receive financial benefits until her actual appointment, which must occur within two months of receiving this order.”
Legal Precedent Cited in the Case
Represented by counsel HC Arora, the petitioner had challenged the rejection of her candidacy for the general (sports) category position, despite having successfully cleared the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test (PSTET) with 87 marks under the backward category. The Punjab government, however, required candidates in the general category to achieve a minimum of 90 marks.
Arora cited the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Vikas Sankhala vs. Vikas Kumar Aggarwal, which stated that candidates from reserved categories could compete in the general category if they met the basic eligibility criteria, even if their marks were lower than the required threshold for the general category.
Court’s Legal Ruling
Justice Sethi concluded that the denial of the petitioner’s appointment was unlawful, as the legal precedent was clear in her favor. The Court emphasized that filling the posts could not override the petitioner’s rightful claim, particularly when she filed her petition without delay after the conclusion of the selection process.
This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal principles in recruitment processes, ensuring that qualified candidates are given fair consideration regardless of administrative procedural matters.
