SHASHI TYAGI Vs. PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are seven in number, were appointed as Child Development Project Officers (for short the CDPOs) in the department of Welfare (Social Welfare Branch) in the State of Punjab in May, 1984. In order to understand the controversy raised, it is necessary to notice few facts.,

(2.) Applications were invited for filling up the posts of CDPOs on purely temporary basis, through advertisement dated August 28, 1983 and December 25,1983. The petitioners who were eligible and qualified as per requirements in the advertisements, applied for the said posts. They were interviewed by a duly constituted Departmental Selection Committee comprising of four officers and on being found fit, were appointed as CDPOs in May 1984, by issuing appointment latters. One such letter of appointment is Annexure P-3. Their appointment was initially made for a period of six months or till the candidates recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission (for short the Commission) join, whichever was earlier. The petitioners continued in service as the term of their appointment was being extended from time to time. One such letter extending their term is Annexure P-4 to the petition. In July, 1989, some posts of CDPOs were required to be advertised by the Commission and immediately thereafter, the petitioners made a representation to the State Government praying therein that they were continuing for more than five years and were eligibe in all respects, and the Government having spent sufficient amount on their training, their services be regularised. The representation as made by the petitioners was accepted. The Government vide its letter dated March 19, 1990 wrote to the Commission that it had decided to take out seven posts of CDPOs from the purview of the Commission as the ad hoc CDPOs were working against these posts from 1984 to 1990 i.e. for the last 5-1/2 years and the Commission had not advertised the posts in spite of requisitions sent twice on October 24,1985 and September 4,1987. The posts have not been advertised even now though requisition was seat on July 11,1989. It was also indicated therein that the officers working against these posts have gained sufficient experience and the Government has made a lot of expenditure on their trainings and that it may happen that the Commission may not select these officers. It was thus, requested that approval to take seven posts of CDPOs out of the purview of the Commission may be accorded. Somehow the Commission did not accord the approval. The Commission ultimately advertised 21 posts in May, 1990 and this led the petitioners to file the present writ petition in June, 1990.

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that ad hoc appointments were made so that the work of the department may not suffer. Acceptance of the representation of the petitioners was not denied. It was, however, stated that since the Commission did not accord approval to lake these posts out of its purview, the posts were advertised. The letter declining approval by the Commission has been placed on the record as Annexure R-1.