PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MALKIAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Board acquired 987 acres of land situated in few villages for setting up of a power project, which included 10 kanals and 18 marlas belonging to the respondent, at Lehra Mohabbat and paid compensation to the land owners. On 18-7-1994, the appellant-Board, with a view to rehabilitate the displaced persons who lost their lands because of acquisition, vide Office Order dated 18-7-1994 constituted a Committee for providing employment on priority basis to one member of the affected family whose land has been acquired for the aforesaid purpose. Pursuant to the said policy-decision as contained in the Office Order dated 18-7-1994, names of 277 persons were recommended for appointment on priority basis. The respondent was one among them. Out of them, 173 persons were appointed against the available vacancies on the basis of qualification possessed by them limited to the maximum of Class-III posts. On 15-5-1998 and 2-6-1998, the appellant-Board revised the policy considering that there was no justification to offer employment to those persons whose lands acquired were very nominal and they need not be given appointment. It was further decided that instead of the Committee constituted earlier, the Chief Engineer (GHTP) should re-examine the proposal only of those land owners whose lands to the extent of 2 acres or more had been acquired for giving benefit of employment on priority basis. It was also decided that no relaxation as regards qualification or age be given in future. Pursuant to this amended policy, cases of the candidates whose lands were acquired were considered and only three candidates were recommended for appointment. All other pending cases were rejected. By the Office Order dated 1-7-1998, the appellant-Board decided to set up a homeopathic dispensary at Lehra Mohabbat Power Station for which a Class-II post of Homeopathy Physician was created for the welfare of staff and their families stationed at the aforesaid power project. A separate Committee was also constituted for selecting a suitable candidate for the said post. Pursuant to the said Officer Order, the Chief Engineer on 17-9-1998 addressed a letter to the District Employment Officer, Bhatinda to send names of suitable candidates for the said post by 27th October, 1998. When things stood thus, the respondent approached the High Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 16989/1998 with a prayer to quash the aforesaid letter dated 17-9-1998, and to quash the revised policy-decision dated 2-6-1998. Further, direction was sought to the appellant-Board to appoint him as a Homeopathic Physician in the Homeopethic dispensary at Lehra Mohabbat Power Station. The appellant-Board contested the writ petition raising plea that he was not eligible to be appointed on priority basis under the scheme; inter alia contenting that the acquired land of the respondent was less than two acres and as such he was not eligible for appointment on priority basis in terms of the policy dated 2-6-1998; the post of Homeopathic Physician was not a Class-III post and as such he was not eligible even under the original scheme dated 18-7-1994; moreover, he was found over-aged and no relaxation could be given under the amended scheme dated 2-6-1998. The appellant also contended that merely because the respondent was one of the 277 candidates whose names were recommended by the Committee for appointment, the same does not entitle him for the appointment. Further, the compensation for the acquired land was given to the respondent as in case of other land owners and as such the respondent could not claim appointment under the scheme as a matter of right. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant-Board to offer appointment for the post of Homeopathic Physician to the respondent as soon as possible, preferably within one month from the date of the order. In these circumstances, aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant-Board is before this Court in this appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant urged : (1) the High Court committed an error in proceeding on a wrong footing that the respondent got a vested right by virtue of Office Order dated 18-7-1994 when his name was recommended for appointment pursuant to the said order; the policy could not be changed subsequently to the disadvantage of the respondent; (2) the decision to set up a homeopathic dispensary and to appoint a Homeopathic Physician (a Class-II post) was taken on 1-7-1998; this post was not available on 18-7-1994 and so the respondent could not make any claim for appointment to the said post pursuant to the policy dated 18-7-1994, that too after it was revised on 2-6-1998; (3) as per the revised policy dated 15-5-1998 and 2-6-1998, the respondent was not eligible for appointment as he did not satisfy the eligibility conditions; and (4) the respondent could not claim appointment as a matter of right under the scheme. The scheme itself was to give some concession in the matter of appointment.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions supporting the impugned judgment. According to him, the name of the respondent having been recommended for appointment pursuant to the Office Order dated 18-7-1994, the appellant-Board was not right in denying appointment to him when several others from the same list were appointed; the policy in regard to appointment on priority basis could not be varied subsequently to the disadvantage of the respondent so as to take away his vested right and the appellant-Board has made discrimination unjustifiably in denying appointment to the respondent.