SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the dispute is very narrow, as selection of Rajinder Singh, respondent No. 4, for the post of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) has been challenged by Subkhvinder Singh, Petitioner, on the ground that even though the petitioner was the son of an ex-serviceman and was entitled for consideration for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) reserved for ex-serviceman, yet, appointment was given to Rajinder Singh, respondent No. 4, who was junior to the petitioner. Besides the qualification of Diploma in Horticulture (Garden Training Course), the petitioner has staked his superior claim on the basis of his ten years' service to his credit on various posts as Horticulture Supervisor, Sectional Officer and Junior Engineer (Horticulture). In fact, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier also in C.W.P. No. 1682 of 1988, which was disposed of on 16th Aug., 1988 in limine, by the Division Bench by passing the following order:-

(2.) In the written statement, the selection of respondent No. 4 from the quota reserved foe ex-servicemen is sought to be justified by placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Harbhajan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and another, 1977 (2) S.L.R. 180 , in which five Judges' Bench held that even if an ex-serviceman accepted an inferior post in the first instance, if no superior post was readily available for him, he is not rendered in eligible for the grant of Military service benefit later on.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any legal infirmity in the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 as Junior Engineer (Horticulture) against the Post reserved for ex-serviceman, especially when the said respondent is better qualified and possesses the qualification of B.Sc. (Honours) with specialisation in Horticulture ture from the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. To that effect the writ petition is devoid of force. However, it is evident on the record that the petitioner is also possessing Diploma in Horticulture and has long service to his credit. His qualification and experience proving his eligibility and suitability for being appointed to a similar post have also not been disputed by the respondents. Otherwise also, having been placed at number 2 in the merit list, he was all through eligible to be appointed in the next vacancy. It has been brought to my notice that at present a number of posts of Junior Engineers (Horticulture) are lying vacant in the Urban Development and Housing Department under respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In addition to that, two Junior Engineers (Horticulture) are also working at present on deputation with the said Department which fact stands admitted by the respondents in .the earlier Civil Writ Petition No. 1682 of 1983 disposed of on 16th Aug., 1988. Therefore, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are desired to adjust the petitioner against one of the aforesaid vacancies, as early as possible, preferably within two months.