GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who had been appointed to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer by the order dated 20.05.1981 seeks for consideration of the fact that he should be treated as having been appointed to a still higher post of a Treasury Officer from the same date by virtue of the fact that the post of Treasury Officer and Assistant Treasury Officer were filled up by the same process of selection in the order of merit and when the person, who was selected to the post of Treasury Officer against the roster point reserved for a Scheduled Caste vacated his office, the petitioner, who was also a Scheduled Caste candidate ought to have been considered as eligible for appointment to the very same post that was vacated. The contention of the petitioner is that the vacation of office by a person, who was appointed in the higher post as a Treasury Officer ought not to be understood as a reserved post having been consumed once he vacated his office, for any reason. The basis of the contention for the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is on a reference to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjit v. State of Punjab, 1978 AIR(SC) 988

(2.) The response to the contention of the petitioner is met by the State to contend that the post of Treasury Officer, which became available after the appointee Sh. Ram Gopal Sahota vacated his post when he was appointed to Punjab Civil Service, Executive Branch was re-advertised by the Punjab Public Service Commission on 3o.10.1985 when Roshan Lal, an Assistant Treasury Officer had applied for the post and he was recommended against the SC quota by its letter dated 06.11.1986. This appointment was done against direct quota post and he had also joined on 03.07.1987. The case of the petitioner had already been rejected by the Department of Welfare, Punjab Reservation Cell on 24.11.1988 and still further affirmed by the office of the Commissioner, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe by its letter dated 19.07.1988. An affidavit has also been filed explaining the fact that the petitioner, Sh. Roshan Lal along with others had been recommended for the post of Assistant Treasury Officer against the advertisement dated 24.11.1979. In the first recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commissioner, Roshan Lal was senior in the merit list/selection list for the post of Assistant Treasury Officer. Subsequently, by a clarification of the Punjab Public Service Commission on 15.10.1981, the name of the petitioner was treated at Sr. No. 1 and declared him senior to Roshan Lal in the selection post for the appointment of Assistant Treasury Officer. The Punjab Government had earmarked the roster point for all categories/classes and point Nos. 1, 5, 9 upto 100 were all earmarked for Class II posts against direct recruitment. Ram Gopal Sahota was appointed as Treasury Officer against roster point No. 1 and the same was consumed after his joining. The post of Treasury Officer which became available after he left the service was readvertised by the Public Service Commission on 20.10.1985 to fill up the roster point No. 5, which was earmarked for SC Category. Roshan Lal had applied for the post of the Treasury Officer against the said advertisement and the Service Commission had recommended his name against SC quota on 16.11.1986. On the basis of such recommendation, Roshan Lal was appointed as a Treasury Officer against roster point No. 5 of direct quota and he joined on 03.07.1987.

(3.) The point of difference seems to be as to how a person, who was appointed against a reserved vacancy on roster point for Scheduled Caste category for direct recruitment could be treated if such person vacates the post after his joining. The petitioner's contention is that a person, who is appointed against a roster point vacates the office, it ought not to be taken as a post consumed against direct recruitment but it should always be seen that vacancy is again filled up by a person belonging to Scheduled Caste so that the balance is maintained and the tally of reservation shall be consistently kept consumed against the posts which are reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. This argument becomes possible only by a particular type of understanding, which the petitioner makes from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1978 AIR(SC) 988 There the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe shall be filled up only by a member of class and if that member resigns from the post, the resultant vacancy should not be included in the normal pool but should be filled up by an eligible candidate of that class. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a case of filling of six vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) as having occurred in the year 1971 when the State Government requested the Public Service Commission to select and recommend six candidates. The recommendation was to be made after holding competitive exams. As longer time than anticipated was taken in holding the examination and completing the selection and in the meanwhile, six more vacancies had occurred in the year 1972, a further request was, therefore, made to recommend six more names through competitive exams. Accordingly after completion of requisite formalities, the Commission had held the competitive exams and recommended eligible candidates for the 12 vacancies. The appellant in that case was a member of the Scheduled Castes and secured 3rd position in the order of merit amongst candidates belong to Scheduled Castes. Since there were only two vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, two persons above him in the order of merit from amongst persons in Scheduled Castes category were appointed and the appellant had been appointed in a still lower post as Tehsildar, which was a Class A post in the order of a second preference indicated by him in his application. Amongst two Scheduled Castes candidates, who had been placed above the appellant, one of them had been selected in the Indian Administrative Services and resigned his office and was relieved on 11.08.1974. Being the next candidate in the order of merit amongst the Scheduled Castes candidate, the appellant made a representation to the State Government claiming on ad hoc basis an appointment against the vacancy caused by the resignation of the person, who left the service to join Indian Administrative Services. This plea was made in accordance with the Government Instructions contained in circular dated March 06, 1961, the validity of which had been previously upheld by this Hon'ble Court in Harbhajan Lal Mudgil v. State of Punjab in C.W.P. No. 3063 of 1965. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was, therefore, typically considering the request of a person, who originally was not selected to a higher post within a reserved category and assigned to a lower post and when a person holding the higher post resigned for joining yet another service and then a vacancy fell, the person who had been posted to a lower post through the same examination staked his claim for the vacancy that had so arisen. The instructions provided that to ensure a due representation to Members of Scheduled Castes/ Tribes and Backward Classes in Government service on a block system based on a formula of rotation, the first vacancy is to be reserved for a member belonging to these Castes/Classes irrespective of his position inter se the other candidates and the remaining four vacancies for others. It enjoined that in case it was not possible to fill the first reserved vacancy by appointment of a candidate belong to Scheduled Caste/Tribe or Backward Class, the vacancy may be filled by a candidate other than one belonging to Scheduled Caste and the reservation be carried on from vacancy to vacancy in the same block until a suitable candidate for the vacancy in the block had been found. The instructions took note of the fact that if services of a Government servant belonging to a reserved class stood terminated and the resultant vacancy was included in the normal pool of vacancies and in this way, the underlying idea of giving due representation was lost. The Government, therefore, directed that a resultant vacancy of any one member of reserved class should not be included in the normal pool of vacancies but should be filled up on ad hoc basis from the candidates belonging to the reserved classes.