ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners pray for the issue of a writ order or direction quashing the selection of respondents No. 4 to 10..... and commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioners against 2 vacancies out of total 7 vacancies." A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On July 30, 1988, the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala advertised seven posts of Assistant Research Officers in the Irrigation Department. The two petitioners as well as respondents Nos. 4 to 10 applied for these posts. They were interviewed by the Commission. The petitioners were not found suitable while respondents No. 4 to 10 were selected. Aggrieved by this selection, the petitioners have approached this Court primarily on the ground that the slection made by the Commission was violative of the provisions of Punjab Irrigation Research (Class-II Service) Rules, 1963 and that the action of Respondents No. 3 in rejecting the petitioners and selecting respondents No. 4 to 10 was illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) Written statements have been filed by different respondents. The one filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is absolutely cryptic. It has been primarily stated that the averments relate to respondent No. 3. In the reply filed by respondent No. 3 it has been inter-alia stated that initially the Commission had taken the view that the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement were "essential" and accordingly, some of the applications were rejected. It has been further stated that "subsequently, on closer scrutiny of the rules it was found that the qualification or experience in the line of research and published work as prescribed in the rules was not a mandatory but only a preferential qualification. Consequently some candidates previously rejected on the ground that they did not possess experience in the line of research and published work became eligible. All candidates, who qualified for the interview including Manish Kumar referred to by the petitioner were called for interview." It has also been averred that "the recommendations for appointment were made in respect of candidates who were found most suitable on the basis of their merit and performance in the interview." On these premises, the selection has been supported.