SUKHDARSHAN PAL SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The power to make appointments to public offices on an adhoc basis, has since long been recognised and this practice has also been accepted by the Courts. However, the manner in which the appointments impugned in the present case have been effected, do engender the feeling that this practice should no longer be allowed to continue.

(2.) By this judgment, we propose to dispose of C.W.P. No. 13130 and 13719 of 1993. The facts have been taken from C.W.P. No. 13130 of 1993.

(3.) In this petition a challenge has been made to the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 10 as Executive Officers Class-Ill on a purely ad hoc basis vide order dated 8th October, 1993, appended as Annexure P2 to the petition. The petitioner, who since 1987 is a practising advocate at Gidderbaha claims to be qualified to be considered for the post of Executive Officer Class-III. The procedure for appointment to the abovesaid post is governed by the Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the '1975 Rules'). Rule 4 which lays down the qualifications necessary for direct appointment, inter alia, provides that the candidate must be a Law Graduate with a minimum experience of three years as an Advocates or with an experience of three years on a post not below the rank of a Superintendent in the Municipal Committee or an equivalent post in the Government Department or a post graduate with at least 2nd division with an experience for a minimum period of one year on a post not lower than the rank of Superintendent in a Municipality or an equal post in a Government department. The qualifications have been appended in extenso as Annexure P1 to the petition. Rule 5 of the 1975 Rules further provides that after initial constitution of the service the subsequent vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment and by promotion in equal shares and if no candidates are available for promotion then by transfer or on deputation. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 provides that the appointment shall be made on the recommendation of a Selection Committee constituted under sub-rule (4), and sub-rule (5) thereof stipulates that this Committee is to consist of a number of officers as also non-officials and the members of this committee are also entitled to associate one or two persons who may be specialists or experienced professionals of eminence keeping in view the nature and the duties of the posts that are to be filled in. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that respondent Nos. 3 to 10 were given appointments as Executive Officers Class-Ill on an adhoc basis in a clandestine manner and no notice or advertisement was ever issued inviting applications for the posts in question nor was the selection made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules. It has also been pleaded that one of the qualifications for appointment was that the candidates must have at least three years of experience at the Bar and that respondent Nos. 3,5 and 7 did not, as a matter of fact, have this experience.