LAWS(P&H)-2021-3-217

BIKRAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On March 25, 2021
BIKRAMJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are being decided vide instant single order as material questions of facts and law involved for adjudication therein are common.

(2.) Relevant factual narrative, as per CWP No.26802/2018, succinctly is as under:

(3.) In their reply to the petition, respondents have pleaded that in the advertisement published in "The Tribune" on 29/9/2011, there was no mention of keeping any reservation for the wards of police personnel. Inadvertently, the news papers "Ajit" and "Punjab Kesri" on 28/9/2011 and 29/9/2011, respectively had printed wrong advertisements and published availability of vacancies under 2% quota meant for the wards of the police personnel. In order to rectify the same and make the position clear, a corrigendum was published highlighting that "no relaxation/benefit will be given to the wards of police personnel". This corrigendum was sent by the Director General of Police, Punjab (respondent No. 2) to the Director, Public Relations, Punjab, Chandigarh vide memo dtd. 4/10/2011 for publication in the newspapers namely "Ajit" "Punjab Kesri" and "The Tribune". Despite this, the petitioner herein and Lakhbir Singh applied for and were appointed under 2% quota for the wards of police personnel in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 28/29/9/2011. Therefore, respondent No. 2 vide letter dtd. 3/7/2018 directed the concerned SSP (respondent No. 3) to take necessary steps with regard to the illegal appointments of the petitioner herein and Lakhbir Singh as constables. In this connection, detailed order dtd. 8/8/2018 Annexure R/l was also issued by respondent No. 2. Show cause notices were issued to both these persons and after considering their replies, their services were rightly terminated. Preliminary objection was also taken that the aforesaid detailed order dtd. 8/8/2018, Annexure R/l, is binding on the petitioner, but has not even been referred to, let alone challenged by him and therefore, the petitioner is left with no claim for relief.