DAIJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to an advertisement by the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') the petitioners applied for the posts of Lecturers and Assistant Professors at the Government Engineering College, Bathinda. They competed. The. Commission found them suitable and recommended their names to the Government for appointment. However, the actual letters of appointment were issued by the Principal Engineering College, Bathinda. A copy of one such letter dated January 9, 1991 issued to one of the petitioners has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. In this letter it has been inter alia mentioned that "in all matters of service in the college, you shall be governed by the rules and regulations of college as applicable from time to time. It has been decided to give autonomous status to the college and the necessary formalities in this behalf are in the process of being completed."

(2.) Mr. Amarjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners-contends that having been selected by the Commission for appointment as Lecturers or Assistant Professors at Government College, Bhatinda, the petitioners had a right to be appointed by the competent authority and treated as holding civil posts. He submits that under the statutory rules called the Punjab Education Service (Class II) Rules, 1934, "all appointments to the service" have to be " made by the Local Government." He has further submitted that on the basis of a proposal to convert the college into an autonomous body, the Goverment could not defeat or deny the rights of the petitioners. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Saron, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents has contended that a decision to declare the college as an autonomous institution has already been taken. In view of that decision, the Principal had issued the letters of appointment and the matter shall be placed before the Board of Governors as and when it is constituted. He submits that even in the letter of appointment it was specially stipulated that the Government has decided to convert the college into an autonomous institution and that the conditions of service of the lecturers shall be governed by the rules and regulations that may be framed by the college. In view of this stipulation, the learned counsel has contended that the petitioners are estopped from making any grievance in the matter.

(3.) We have perused the record of the case. Admittedly, the petitioners were selected for appointment at the Government Engineering College, Bathinda by the Commission. It has been averred in the written statement that the Government did not issue the appointment letters as it had been decided to give autonomous statute to the college. However, keeping in view "the critical shortage of teaching staff in the college and great unrest amongst the students as their studies were suffering very badly....... the Principal Engineering College Bathinda offered the recommendees of Punjab Public Service Commission, the posts on the terms and conditions contained in Annexure P-3". It has been also averred that the letters of appointments were issued by the Principal to avoid delay and in anticipation of getting ex-post facto approval of these appointments in the first meeting of the Board of Governors. It is thus clear that even though the Government had "on 30th November, 1990 accorded approval, in principle, to give autonomous status to Government Engineering College, Bathinda, with Registered Society and Board of Governors, "the College had not ceased to be a Government Engineering College on January 9, 1991 when the petitioners were appointed to the Service. The letters of appointment were not issued from the Principal by the Government. A perusal of the letters dated December 28, 1990 issued by the Government to the Principal (Copy at Annexure P-2) shows that the letter containing "the recommendations of P.P.S.C. alongwith relevant documents and certificates" was sent to the Principal to enable him" to take necessary action regarding appointments with the approval of the competent authority of ths autonomous body." Neither on December 28, 1991, when the letter was sent nor on January 9, 1991, when the letters of appointment were actually issued, had any Board of Governors or "any competent authority" been constituted. It was, in fact, an appointment ordered by the Government and the device was adopted merely with the object of denying the petitioners their legitmate rights as civil servants. We are satisfied that the college was a government institution and the appointments had been made with the approval of the Government. We have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners were recruited to civil posts and their status etc. are at par with the other teachers working at the College. As and when the college is brought under the control of a Board of Governors, the petitioners shall have a right to be treated at par with others working in the institution. They would be entitled to party to treatment in all respects.