SARDARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions and heard along with the appeals.

(2.) Common questions of facts and law arise in the appeals and hence are disposed of by a common judgment. It is not necessary to restate the facts, preceding the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab. (W.P. No. 2374 of 1985). Suffice to state that the High Court in the said judgment, while allowing the ad hoc appointments made by the Government of Punjab to the posts of Patwaris under the Punjab Revenue Patwari Class III Service Rules, 1963, for short 'the Rules' to continue for six months, directed the State Government to make regular appointments in accordance with the rules within the said period from the. date of the judgment or else the ad hoc arrangement would lapse. Pursuant thereto, since the Service Selection Board, Punjab was not constituted, the Government of Punjab by a notification dated August 26, 1986 amended R. 2(a) and empowered the State Government to authorise "other authorities" to make recruitment to the service. Accordingly the Government constituted a, Committee for each District, by proceeding dated May 27, 1986 to make selection. For the District Committee of Patiala, the Dy. Commissioner, Patiala was the Chairman, the District Revenue Officer, Patiala, District Sainik Welfare Officer and District Social Welfare Officer (Scheduled Caste) were nominated as members of the Committee. The pending names of the candidates before the S. S. Board were sent to the Committee for selection. The District Collector invited applications from special categories, namely, children affected by the riots at Delhi, territories affected families in Punjab, etc. and issued call letters to 1210 candidates for interview. By the date of the interview Shri Piara Singh, the District Revenue Officer was transferred and his successor had participated in the selection. Out of 821 candidates appearing for interview, 189 candidates were selected; the list was prepared in their order of merit; and the Dist. Collector appointed 146 candidates and sent them for Patwari training and on their completion of it in a period of one year, they were appointed as Patwaris on probation. The selections were challenged by unsuccessful candidates in several writ petitions and by judgment dated February 28, 1989, the High Court dismissed the L.P. Appeal and the Writ Petitions. On leave under Art. 136, the appeals arise from that batch.

(3.) The first contention of the appellants that the Committee was not properly constituted and, therefore, the selections of the candidates are invalid has no force. Under R. 4(1) of the Rules, as per amended R. 2(a) the authority authorised by the Government is entitled to make recruitment to the service of Patwaris. The Committee constituted consists of Dy. Commissioner as Chairman, the District Revenue Officer, Patiala, District Sainik Welfare Officer and District Social Welfare Officer (S.C.) as members. Undoubtedly, at the time when the Committee was constituted, Piara Singh was the District Revenue Officer. On his transfer, his successor had participated in the selection. We have seen the notification. The Dist. Revenue Officer, Patiala was nominated in official capacity. Therefore, the member having been nominated by virtue of his office, the incumbent in office was therefore entitled to participate in the selection of the candidates. It is true that the representation of the scheduled castes need be by an officer belonging to Scheduled Caste. The District Social Welfare Officer (Scheduled Caste) as required should be an officer belonging to the members of the scheduled caste. It is not uncommon that the Social Welfare Officer may be an officer other than one from the scheduled castes. But there in this case it is not the contention that the District Social Welfare Officer was not a Scheduled Caste Officer representing the scheduled castes. Therefore, we find that the committee constituted was properly composed of the representatives enumerated herein. The composition of the committee and the selection of the candidates, therefore, are legal and valid.