PARSHOTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The Punjab Public Services Commission issued an advertisement dated 22-7-1989 for conducting examination for Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch and Allied Services) to fill in eight posts to the P.C.S. (Executive Branch), four posts of Excise and taxation Officers and five posts of Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies. One of the posts of Excise and Taxation Officers was reserved for the wards of freedom fighters. The appellant, who claimed to be the son of a freedom fighter applied. However, he gave his first choice of service as the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) and second that of Excise and Taxation Officer. It is an admitted case that there was no reservation in favour of the wards of the freedom fighters either in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) or against the posts of Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies. The appellant passed the competitive examination and also appeared in the viva-voce and as envisaged by the rules, a joint merit list was prepared and appointments were ordered to be made on the basis of that list in the order namely i) to the posts in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch), then to those of Excise and Taxation Officers and finally to those of Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies. The grievance of the appellant is that respondent No. 2, the Punjab Public Service Commission did not consider his candidature for the P.C.S (Executive Branch) on the premise that as he had applied as a ward of freedom fighter against the reserved post in the category of Excise and Taxation Officers, therefore his case was to be considered only for that category. Challenging the action of the Commission, the appellant filed a writ petition but the same was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) There is no dispute that the appellant in his application has given his order of preference and the first preference was to the post of P.C.S. (Executive Branch). Since he happened to be a ward of a freedom fighter, he also gave his second preference to one of the posts of Excise and Taxation Officers reserved for such wards. Before the High Court the respondents in the first instance admitted in their counter affidavit that the appellant's case was considered only for the post of Excise and Taxation Officer and was selected as such. But in an additional affidavit, they however averred that even if the case of the appellant had been considered for a post in P.C.S. (Executive Branch) he was not liable to be selected on the basis of merit as per the rules. Refuting the stand taken by the Public Service Commission the appellant also contended before the High Court that he secured more marks than respondent No. 4 yet he was declared successful for being selected in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch). The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition holding that the selection of respondent No. 4 could not be faulted.