CAPTAIN PREET DEV SINGH SHERGILL Vs. INDEERDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order we dispose of three Letters Patent Appeals No. 699, 697 and 679 of 2009 as they are directed against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2008 rendered in C.W.P. No. 9671 of 1993. For the sake of convenience, brief facts have been taken from L.P.A. No. 699 of 2009. The facts may be set out briefly to say that the Punjab Public Service Commission issued an advertisement to fill up 16 posts belonging to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) and few others belonging to its allied services, which advertisement was issued in the year 1985. The writ petitioner Indeerdeep Singh (respondent No. 1 herein) applied in response to the said advertisement and indicated his preference for the Executive Branch. On the notified date i.e. 14.10.1985 the examination could not be conducted and in the meantime, a fresh advertisement was issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission on 5.9.1987 in which 5 posts were advertised and some posts for the allied services were also intended to be filled up. This advertisement carried a stipulation that those candidates who had applied in response to the earlier advertisement in the year 1985, need not apply again. The writ petitioner however, applied afresh in response to the subsequent advertisement of the year 1987 by pleading that he intended to change his subject even though his stand in the writ petition was that the advertisement of 1987 was merely a supplement to the earlier notification of 1985.

(2.) On his due participation in the selection process, the final select list was released by the Punjab Public Service Commission and the petitioner's name figured at Serial No. 7. The first five candidates were selected for the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch), while the petitioner who was at No. 7, was allocated to the allied services as District Food & Supplies Controller which he accepted. The case of respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) further was that he acquired the knowledge that the Punjab Public Service Commission was making appointment to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) against the five advertised vacancies as per the select list released, but was not making appointment against the sixteen vacancies advertised pertaining to the year 1985. His case was therefore, that considering the number of posts available, the Punjab Public Service Commission was obliged to fill up the sixteen posts advertised in the year 1985 from amongst the selected candidates since the select list was declared in 1987. His additional ground was that there was a cadre review of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) with effect from 1.3.1989 increasing the strength by 50 posts out of which 25 were meant for the direct recruits, while the remaining 25 were to be filled up by nomination from amongst the Subordinate Service of the State. He thus, perceived that the vacancies which were available to be filled up were 16+5+25 and thus, as per the circular dated 22.3.1957 which prescribed the time limit of six months for filling up the vacancies out of the names recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission, such vacancies and additional vacancies which were not intimated to the Punjab Public Service Commission when inviting recommendations, were to be filled up with particular reference to this circular, as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1999 2 SCT 652 and also the rules, in particular Rule 7 which obligates the preparation of a roster of accepted candidates to be maintained and followed to fill up posts from every alternate vacancy after the result of the main competitive examination. The writ petitioner thus pressed for his claim to be appointed to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) which prayer was accepted by the learned Single Judge and a direction was issued that he shall be given appointment with all consequential benefits of seniority on the basis of his merit.

(3.) After intensive deliberations by the respective parties to the dispute, it was noticed that the learned Single Judge proceeded to determine the matter in the absence of any response having been filed by the present appellant (in L.P.A No. 679 of 2009) namely the State of Punjab and the Punjab Public Service Commission as they had failed to file their responses till the date of hearing. However, their replies to the petition have now been placed on record which have brought some facts to the fore the benefit of which the learned Single Judge was deprived of.