AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who applied for the post of Clerk, has approached this court impugning public notice dated 14.6.2012, requiring the candidates to appear in the written test.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain posts of Clerk were advertised by Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board (for short, 'the Board') vide advertisement dated 18.7.2011 (Annexure P-1). It was specifically mentioned therein that person so appointed on the post of Clerk shall have to qualify a typing test in Punjabi to be conducted by the Board @ 30 words per minute within a period of one year from the date of his appointment. On failure, he will not be entitled to annual increment, which shall be payable from the date he qualifies such a test. It was submitted that selection was to be made on merits. A merit list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner stands at Sr. No. 3. It was so uploaded on the website of the Board and was available on 8.8.2011. However, subsequently the criteria was changed and it was provided that typing test shall be conducted before final selection. For the purpose, though the Board sought to place reliance upon notification dated 17.8.2011 amending the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules'), however, the same are to be applicable on or after the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette. As the amendment itself was made on 17.8.2011, it could not be made applicable to the process of selection already initiated on 18.7.2011. While placing reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others, 2002 AIR(SC) 224 and K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. and another, 2008 2 JT 437, the submission is that the Rules could not be changed midstream when the selection process had already initiated.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the Board submitted that in the advertisement, a condition had specifically been mentioned regarding the applicable Rules. In case any amendment/notification is made therein, the same shall also be applicable. The amendment was made merely 12 days after the last date for receipt of applications, which was 5.8.2011. In the present case, the amendment in the Rules had been made on 17.8.2011 providing for passing of typing test in Punjabi before the selection and appointment as Clerk. By that time, only the applications had been received and processed. No appointments had yet been made. The list was prepared as per the marks obtained by the candidates in their educational qualifications. It cannot be termed as a merit list for appointment. After the amendment in the Rules, a corrigendum was issued and published in the newspaper on 22.10.2011 notifying that for the purpose of appointment as Clerk, a candidate will have to qualify a typing test in Punjabi before his appointment. The schedule for test was also notified. As the number of candidates was more, first test was conducted on 5.11.2011. It continued in phases on different dates in batches. The petitioner had, in fact, appeared in typing test in Punjabi on 5.11.2011 and failed. Once the petitioner had already participated in the process of selection and failed, he cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the same claiming that the process was not fair. In case the petitioner was aggrieved, he should have availed of his remedy at the appropriate time and not after the entire process of selection was over and even the appointments had been made in June, 2012.