GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurdev Singh, through present writ filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue further posting orders to him without any further" delay as also to regularise his service on the post of Irrigation Booking Clerk/Canal Patwari.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that petitioner was recruited as Irrigation Booking Clerk (here-in-after mentioned as I.B.C.). on ad-hoc basis on August 3, 1982. He served the department from August 6,1982 to January 28,1984. He was given a break of only one or two days. However, from January 31,1984 to May 8,1986 concededly he worked again and the total period for which, he thus worked, comes to 3 years and 9 months. According to the case of petitioner, he was transferred to canal Lining Circle, Bhatinda on March 31, 1984 and he served there upto May 8,1986 when he was spared by the the Superintending Engineer, Canal Lining Circle, Bhatinda and directed to report to the Chief Engineer, Tubewell Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh for getting further posting orders. It is further pleaded that when he reported to the Chief Engineer, he was not given further posting orders. It is in the wake of order aforesaid that he prays that he be given posting orders. When several representations made by petitioner brought no tenable results, he got issued a notice through his counsel, copy whereof has been annexed a Annexure P-3. It is further pleaded that he passed the examination for Canal Patwar conducted by the department in the months of November-December, 1985 and February, 1986 vide Annexure P-4. In the said examination, a number of candidates had appeared but the department illegally and arbitrarily declared the results of few persons on April 10, 1986. When remaining persons approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition, a direction was issued to declare the results of all the persons within one month and it was in consequence thereof only that the result of petitioner was declared. The respondents in the meanwhile absorbed number of persons on the post of I.B.C/Canal Patwari who were declared surplus by the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation and it is specifically pleaded that those persons had not passed the Canal patwar examination. It is from the facts aforesaid that the second prayer is made so as to absorb petitioner in service on regular basis.

(3.) The matter has been contested and in the written statement that has been filed by respondents, it has been pleaded that the appointment of Canal Patwari is regulated under the Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Patwari State Services, Class III Rules, 1955 and under Rule 11 of the Rules aforesaid every accepted candidate patwari shall have to pass canal patwar Examination after canal Patwar Training for a period not less than three months under Zilladar's section. The accepted candidate can not take the examination until and unless a certificate is given by the Zilladar that he had acquired the practical knowledge of the work of Patwari and he had successfully completed his training. Every accepted candidate Patwari shall be posted to a Zilladar's section to be trained for a period of not less than three months in the practical duties of Canal Patwari and shall have to pass parts (iv) (v), (vi) and (vii) of die patwar Examination detailed in Appendix 'B' Since petitioner had neither received canal patwari training in Zilladar's section nor had passed the Canal Patwar examination which is a pre-requisite for appointment even as an apprentice patwari under the Rules, so his appointment in stop- gap arrangement for a period of three months did not entitled him for regular appointment. Insofar as the petitioner having taken Canal Patwari Examination as also declaration of his result in consequence of the writ petition filed in this Court, are concerned, dth same have not been denied. It has also been admitted that due to reduction of posts of I.B.C. in the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation in the year 1986, as many as 105 retrenched Patwaris were allocated to the Irrigation Department to give them appointments as I.B.C. against existing vacancies. The Government had taken decision at the highest level to absorb them and in pursuance of the policy decision of the Government, 47 retrenched patwaris of Punjab State Tubewell Corporation, who had not passed the canal Patwari Examination, were appointed purely on adhoc basis with, of course, a condition that they would have to pass the said examination within a period of six months. In their case the provisions of Rule 11, as have been noticed above, were relaxed.