WAZIR CHAND ETC Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Assistant District Industries Officer/Development Officer on September 22, 1975 and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in August, 1976. The conditions of service and recruitment to the various posts in the Industries Department are governed by the Punjab Industries Service (State Service Class II) rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 9(b) which prescribes the mode of recruitment to the posts of Assistant Director reads as under :-

(2.) The Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter called 'the Commission') gave an advertisement in the Tribune in May, 1978, calling upon applications for recruitment to eleven posts of Assistant Directors through a competitive examination. The petitioners submitted their applications within the prescribed time. A competitive examination was scheduled to be held on December 24, 1978. The petitioners were, however, informed vide Annexure P-4 dated December 1, 1978 that they were not qualified to sit in the examination as neither they had worked for four years in the Department nor had necessary five years sound administrative experience. The petitioners then moved the State Government under Rule 19 for relaxation of the provisions of Rule 9 which require four years service. The other ground given by the Commission that the petitioners were required to have five years' sound administrative experience did not relate to them because they were seeking direct recruitment and the condition of experience applied only when the appointments were to be made by promotion. As the petitioners fulfilled all the qualifications required for direct recruitment except the age limit, the Government in exercise of its powers contained in Rule 19 relaxed the condition of experience and the length of service in the case of Departmental candidates who had applied for direct recruitment and further directed the Commission to consider their case for the competitive examination along with the other candidates. A copy of this order dated December 20, 1978 has been produced with the petition as Annexure P-5. Inspite of this order the petitioners were never issued roll numbers nor they were allowed to take the examination which compelled them to come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the Commission Annexure P-4 and the selection of respondents 3 to 13. A further prayer has been made for the issuance of the writ of mandamus directing the Commission to reconsider the claims of the petitioners along with the other applicants.

(3.) The petition has been opposed by the State. The Commission and the private respondents. In the written statement filed by the State all the facts alleged by the petitioners have been admitted and the only plea raised to oppose the petition is that the petitioners could not claim relaxation as a matter of right. As the Government had already chosen to invoke the provisions of relaxation this plea by the State has no meaning. In the written statement filed by the Commission the claim of the petitioners is controverted on two grounds, namely, that in the order, Annexure P-5, the Government relaxed the condition of age, but as it was not specified to what extent the age was relaxed, it was not possible to give effect to the order of the Government and that if the conditions prescribed in the rules qua the Departmental candidates were deemed to have been relaxed it was necessary to re-advertise the posts to give opportunity to all eligible Departmental Candidates, but as there was no time to do so, it was not possible at that stage to allow the petitioners to sit in the examination.