RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Castes category, is working as A.G. III (Depot) of the Food Corporation of India in District Patiala. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh (herein called the Markfed) issued an advertisement in The Tribune dated 6th August, 1986 inviting applications for the posts of Management Trainees. The petitioner applied in response to the said advertisement. He along with other candidates, who had applied for the posts, was interviewed in the preliminary interview held on 1st December, 1986, by a Committee constituted by the Markfed consisting of the Managing Director, Additional Managing Director (General), Additional Managing Director (Procurement) and Chief Accounts Officer. 17 candidates, who were found suitable in the preliminary interview, were called for final interview and Respondents No. 3 to 5 and one Mr. Sandeep Jain were selected. The petitioner was not found suitable in the preliminary interview, and, therefore, was not called for final interview. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his non-selection and the selection of Respondents No. 3 to 5. It may be observed here that at the time of arguments, the petitioner gave up the challenge to the selection of Respondents No. 3 to 5.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Arun Nehra, learned counsel, appearing for the Markfed, submitted that the employees of the Markfed are governed by the Statutory Rules known as The Punjab State and Marketing Cooperatives Services (Common Cadre) Rules, 1967, and according to Rule 2.3(d) of these Rules, the reservation for direct recruitment was for the first time provided on 17th August, 1967, and according to Rule 2.3(d) of these Rules, the reservation for direct recruitment was for the first time provided on 17th August, 1987. He further submitted that the instructions of the Government regarding reservation are not ipso facto applicable to Markfed. In any case, there was no reservation for the posts of Management Trainees, and if at all the reservation was held to be there, it was for the posts of Managerial cadre which are offered after the completion of the training by the Management Trainees. He further argued that letter dated 5th May, 1970 (Annexure P.6) to which reference has been made above, was addressed by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes only to Secretary, Punjab Public Service Commission, and the Markfed had not adopted this letter. It was also the contention that letter, Annexure P.6 is violative of Article 335 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it is not necessary to go into all the points raised by the respective counsel. Suffice it to mention that the instructions contained in letter dated 5th May, 1970 (Annexure P.6) are not applicable to Markfed. Neither this letter was addressed to Markfed nor the same was adopted by the Markfed. I may make it clear that I am not holding one way or the other whether the Government can issue instructions to the Markfed or not. Without holding whether there was a reservation for the posts of Management Trainees or not, I am assuming in favour of the petitioner that there was such a reservation for the members of the Scheduled Castes. However, the petitioner had no right to be appointed by belonging to the Scheduled Castes category. His suitability had to be judged and if he was not found suitable by the Interview Committee in the preliminary interview, there was nothing wrong in rejecting him and not calling him for the final interview. The employer can certainly see whether a member of the Scheduled Castes would make a good officer and is suitable for the job. If in the opinion of the employer such a person belonging to Scheduled Castes is not suitable, he need not be selected and given appointment. The petitioner was duly considered by the Selection Committee, which was quite a high-powered and was not found suitable in the preliminary interview. That being so, petitioner had no right to be appointed even though he was the only Scheduled Caste candidate. Article 335 of the Constitution of India provides that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. Accordingly to the Article, the efficiency has to be kept in mind while making appointments of the members of the Scheduled Castes. From this it is evidence that simply by having minimum qualifications for the post, the person belonging to Scheduled Caste category does not get a right of appointment, but the employer has a right to see whether a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes is suitable for the post or not.