JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a Sikh Shrine under the control of an Endowment Board created by the Maharaja of Patiala known as the Dharam Arth Burj Baba Ala Singh, Kila Andrun, Patiala (for short "the Dharam Arth"). It appears that the Punjab Government in the Cultural Affairs Department issued Memo No. 1/6/91/4TC/4531 dated 2.12.1992 recognising the tradition of appointing Rehrasia Sahib at the Dharam Arth on the recommendation of Captain Amrinder Singh, of the Patiala royal family referred to in the State correspondence appended to this petition as "His Highness the Maharaja of Patiala". Captain Amrinder Singh has been impleaded as the 4th respondent in the writ petition. The petitioner claims that he is well aware of the customs of Sikh Religion and its Maryada. He claims that he is middle standard pass (Class VIII) and belongs to a family that follows Sikh religion. He avers that he made an application on 21.9.2009 to the 2nd respondent -Director Cultural Affairs Archives, and Museum Department, for consideration on his request and affording him an opportunity to serve on the post of Rehrasia, then lying vacant at the Dharam Arth. The department forwarded the application to His Highness the Maharaja of Patiala for his comments and recommendation through letter dated 7.1.2010 (P -2) in recognition of old custom and tradition posited in the 4th respondent. The post of Rehrasia Sahib carries a pay scale of Rs. 4900 -10680+1650 on basic pay of Rs. 4900 + 1650 = 6,550 including other allowances payable from time to time.

(2.) THE complaint of the petitioner is that without considering his application, a recommendation was made on 14.5.2010 by the 4th respondent to the Government to appoint Ranjit Singh -respondent No. 3 as Rehrasia Sahib. The recommendation was accepted and the Government appointed the 3rd respondent to the post by letter of appointment dated 23.7.2010 (P -4). Ranjit Singh joined the post and is serving.

(3.) IT is seen from the above order that this Court by an interim order in the aforesaid writ petition passed on 17.1.2011 had granted time to the learned counsel for the petitioner to place on record the relevant rules governing appointment to the post of Rehrasia Sahib at the Dharam Arth/Gurudwara Sahib and despite several opportunities no rule was produced. In those circumstances, finding lack of material on record to decide the case on merits, directions were issued that the petitioner's representation against the appointment of the 3rd respondent be decided within six months. The period specified in the order dated 29.8.2011 elapsed. No action taken on it was forthcoming. The petitioner, therefore, filed COCP No. 1788 of 2012 alleging contempt of the orders of this Court. The contempt petition was disposed of on 3.9.2012 by passing the following order: -