KULJEET SINGH DULLET Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions address the same issue of tenability of claims to postings of the petitioners as per their respective choice when vacancies arose in the public posts for employment. The initial selection was made in the year 1988 on the basis of Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services Examination of 1988, when 16 posts were advertised in 6 branches, namely, (i) Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch); (ii) District Food and Supply Officer; (iii) Excise and Taxation Officer; (iv) Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies; (v) Assistant Employment Officer; and (vi) Labour and Conciliation Officer. The contention of the petitioner in CWP No.10183 of 1991 is that she had been declared successful and figured at serial No.9 in the order of merit in the list of 10 names recommended for appointment in the general category. The petitioner had been posted as Assistant Employment Officer by an appointment letter issued on 08.06.1990.

(2.) As regards the petitioner in CWP No.15664 of 1993, she had figured at serial No.3 in the list of successful candidates from general category and she had been offered appointment to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer in the order of merit, although she had opted for the post of PCS (Executive Branch). She could not be accommodated in the post to which she had opted for, since there were only two posts and there were two candidates from general category, who were admittedly above her. She had been invited to join her duties at Patiala on 03.10.1990.

(3.) Both the petitioners have the same type of complaints. The petitioner in CWP No.10183 of 1991 would point out that the candidates at serial Nos.6 and 8, who were admittedly above her, did not join in the respective posts offered to them. As far the petitioner in CWP No.15664 of 1993, Mr. B.K. Uppal, who had joined in the PCS (Executive Branch) vacated his office as a consequence of his selection to the Indian Police Service (IPS). Though he had joined PCS (Executive Branch) on 09.11.1990, he had tendered his resignation on 04.09.1991 and relived from duty on 13.09.1991. Both the petitioners would point out to the instances where in the past when the selected candidate had not joined the post which was offered to him and consequently the vacancy arose, the person next in the order of merit was considered for filling-up the vacant post, so as to match the option of a candidate to a vacancy that arose. The past instances of such adjustments are also not in dispute. The contention in defence, however, is with reference to a circular which was issued on 19.11.1992 on the subject of appointment from one service to another on transfer basis where it was observed that the practice of transfer from one service to another was improper and that therefore it was decided by the Government that in future no such appointment in any of the departments of the State Government would be made by transfer provided for the employees had joined in the respective posts and they had undergone training. The State would also refer to its own circular issued much earlier on 11.01.1962 from the Chief Secretary to Government Punjab, addressed to the Heads of the Departments, where they have stated that if vacancies were identified and candidates had been earmarked against the particular posts, if by chance any candidate falls out as a result of verification of character and antecedents, medical examination etc., a new appointment should not be made in place thereof as that would involve a revision of the whole list, but the vacancy should be carried forward as an additional vacancy to the next year.