GURBAX RAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In November 1997, Superintending Engineer, PWD B&R, Amritsar Circle, sent requisition Annexure P-1 to the employment exchange calling upon them to sponsor the names of qualified candidates for recruitment to the posts of Sectional Officers. It was stated in the requisition that the candidates who were to be considered for selection to the post of Sectional Officers should be holding Diploma in Civil Engineering. Posts against which the candidates were sought to be sponsored by the employment exchange were to be recruited against temporary posts. It was mentioned in the requisition that posts were likely to continue further. All the petitioners were enrolled with the employment exchanges of Amritsar, Gurdaspur and Ferozepur districts. The employment exchanges of these districts forwarded the names of about 50 candidates belonging to the districts of Amritsar, Gurdaspur and Ferozepur for selection to the posts of Sectional Officers. All the candidates were interviewed at Amritsar by a panel of senior officers comprising two Executive Engineers and one Superintending Engineer. In the interview, the educational qualifications of all the candidates were scrutinized. Their suitability for posts concerned was also ascertained on the basis of their performance in the interview. Out of a total of 50 candidates who appeared in the interview, only 14 were selected on the basis of their relative merit. At the time of recruitment of the petitioners to the posts of Sectional Officers, the Subordinate Services Selection Board had not been constituted in the State of Punjab. Subordinate Services Selection Board was constituted in the state of Punjab in February, 1968 and decision to this effect was conveyed to all the Heads of Departments in the State of Punjab by an official communication on behalf of Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab bearing No. 583-SII-4(2)- 68/2303 dated 6.2.1968. Had the Subordinate Services Selection Board been constituted on or before November, 1967, the recruitment to the posts of Sectional Officers would have been undertaken through the said Board. As the initial salary of the post of Sectional Officer was Rs. 100/-, the post of Sectional Officer would have fallen within the purview of the Board. Process of selection of the petitioners as Sectional Officers was open, fair and according to the rules prevalent at the time for the purpose of selection and appointment to the posts of sectional officers. The procedure adopted by the selection committee constituted by the Superintending Engineer and two Executive Engineers was open and fair which did not favour any particular individual or any particular section of prospective candidates. In fact, the authorities tried to throw as wide a net for the purpose of selection as was possible. Copy of the order dated k6.2.1968 constituting Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab is Annexure P-2. Petitioners were selected as Sectional Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 100-300. In Pursuance of the selection process undertaken by the respondent No. 2 as detailed above the petitioners were selected as Sectional Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 100-300 as detailed above. Appointment letters appointing petitioners No. 1, 2 and 5 are Annexure P-3, P-4 and P-5 respectively. Though in the appointment letter of each of the petitioners, it was stated that the appointment was purely temporary and the services could be terminated at any time on the joining of a candidate approved by the Board without any notice and assigning any reason, posts against which the petitioners were appointed were regular vacancies which were likely to continue indefinitely as opposed to ad hoc posts/appointments which exists only for a specified period of time or only as a stop gap arrangement. The date of entry into the cadre of Junior Engineers (Civil)/Sectional Officers has to be counted as 30.11.1967 in case of those petitioners who joined service on the said date and in case of the other petitioners the date they were given their appointments and not any other subsequent date arbitrarily arrived at by the respondent authorities. Initial appointments of the petitioner were according to the rules prevalent at that time and as the appointments of the petitioners were valid on all counts, the benefit of seniority cannot be denied to them from the date of actual entry into the cadre of Junior Engineers. It was arbitrary if any other subsequent date arrived at by the respondent authorities was determined which will govern the seniority of the petitioners. From the date of initial appointment of the petitioners, they have been working continuously and without any break whatsoever. The respondent authorities, thereafter decided to regularise the appointment of the petitioners with retrospective effect. The order regularising the services of the petitioners stated that the appointments of the Sectional Officers (petitioners) mentioned therein as regular temporary Sectional Officers are hereby ordered with effect from 4.3.1969 in the pay scale of Rs. 200-450. The order also stated that no benefit of service rendered on ad hoc basis prior to 4.3.1969 will be given. Not giving seniority to the petitioners for the service rendered to the petitioners after counting the service rendered for the period prior to 4.3.1969 is arbitrary, illegal and without any basis. There is no cogent reason available to the respondent authorities justifying denial of the benefit of service and consequent seniority for the period of service rendered prior to 4.3.1969. Copy of the order dated 1.6.1977 is Annexure P-6. Service rendered by the petitioners even prior to 4.3.1969 was against the regular vacancies filled according to the rules by the petitioners who fully qualified for the posts and they were selected by a fair, open and valid process of selection and the services rendered by the petitioners were uninterrupted from the date of their appointments to the date of regularisation i.e. 1.6.1977 and even thereafter. Respondent Nos. 4 to 33 were appointed as Sectional Officers in the year 1968 and the senior-most amongst them Faqir Chand Goyal was appointed on 6.3.1968. Rest of the respondents joined service thereafter but were placed above the petitioners in the seniority list dated 31.7.1996. It is alleged that the respondents like the petitioners were appointed against the temporary posts but were likely to continue. They also hold the same qualifications i.e. diploma in Civil Engineering, as do the petitioners. Even if the respondents No. 4 to 33 were selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, that is besides the point so far as the question of determination of seniority is concerned when the petitioners were recruited by a selection committee constituted by the Superintending Engineer and two Executive Engineers. At a point of time when the Board had not been constituted in the State of Punjab, selections used to be made by the departmental selection committees in different departments of the State of Punjab, as such, merely because respondents No. 4 to 33 were recruited by the Board should not give them edge over the petitioners in the matter of seniority. Date of appointment should govern the seniority of each of the petitioners and respondents No. 4 to 33 instead of whether they were recruited by the Subordinate Services Selection Board or by the departmental selection committees.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the petition urging that the petitioners were not given the benefit of service prior to 4.3.1969 towards experience because the government vide letter No. 41597 dated 15.10.1975 Annexure R-2 have issued instructions that ad hoc service rendered by employee prior to regular appointment should not be counted towards experience, and ad hoc employee cannot get preference over a regular employee especially in the matter of promotion. It was submitted that requisition was for 6 posts of Sectional Officers and 8 temporary posts of Sectional Officers which were likely to continue. It was stated that on ad hoc/purely temporary basis recruitments used to be made until the constitution of the Board.

(3.) Petitioners were recruited by a departmental selection committee from amongst candidates who were sponsored by the employment exchanges. Number of candidates competed for 14 posts. They were duly qualified. They were recruited when the Board had not been constituted in the State of Punjab, by the departmental selection committee. Departmental selection committee was in a way substitute for the regular recruiting agency namely the Board or the Public Service Commission as the case may be. Petitioners' claim that they should have been given seniority with effect from the date of their appointments which were made pursuant to the selection made by the departmental selection committee. Even though in the order of their appointment, it is stated that the posts were temporary but were likely to continue and in fact they continued. Recruitment of the petitioners to the posts of Sectional Officers cannot be termed as ad hoc when they were recruited by a regularly constituted departmental selection committee from amongst a number of candidates who had competed with each other for selection to the posts of Sectional Officers.