GURDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was an applicant for the post of Panchayat Secretary, has approached this court impugning the communication dated 1.10.2012, whereby his claim for reinstatement as Panchayat Secretary, was declined.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary on 12.10.2001 along with more than 900 other candidates. As ultimately, it was found that the selection was bad on account of various reasons, the same was cancelled on 10.12.2002. Later on, the State engaged all the terminated Panchayat Secretaries on contract basis. As the petitioner was not re-engaged, he enquired the reason therefor. He was informed that as on the cut-off date fixed for submission of application, the petitioner was under age, his appointment was cancelled on that ground. The date of birth mentioned by the petitioner was 17.8.1980 and the cut-off date being 1.9.1997. After the petitioner came to know about this fact, he moved Punjab School Education Board for correction of his date of birth, which was in fact 17.10.1976. His prayer was accepted and a corrected matriculation certificate mentioning his date of birth as 17.10.1976 was issued on 19.8.2007. For his engagement as Panchayat Secretary on contract basis, the corrected certificate was even got verified by the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats from Punjab School Education Board, but still nothing was done. Thereafter, the petitioner got a legal notice dated 8.9.2012 issued to the respondents claiming reinstatement, however, vide communication dated 1.10.2012, the petitioner was informed that his claim had already been considered and information was sent vide letter dated 21.7.2008, therefore legal notice has been filed, whereas the aforesaid intimation was never received by him. The submission is that once the petitioner has got his date of birth corrected in the record with Punjab School Education Board and had produced a fresh certificate mentioning correct date of birth, he deserves to be offered appointment as Panchayat Secretary, as all other Panchayat Secretaries, who were appointed along with the petitioner initially and removed, were reengaged on contract basis and subsequently regularised.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that finding bungling in the selection, FIR was registered against the then Minister Incharge and the Members of the Selection Committee and all the Panchayat Secretaries were removed from service on 10.12.2002, however, later on in terms of the decision taken by the Council of Ministers, they were engaged on contract basis on 19.2.2004. For removal of the petitioner, additional ground was that on the date of appointment, he was under age. There were number of other candidates, who were removed on account of being below/above the prescribed age. The intimation of the decision earlier taken was given to the petitioner vide endorsement dated 21.7.2008, which has not been impugned. The cut-off date fixed in the advertisement was 1.9.1997. The date of birth mentioned by the petitioner being 17.8.1980, he was below 18 years of age on that date. It was further submitted that once at the time of initial appointment the petitioner had produced the certificate showing his date of birth as 17.8.1980, merely because he had got the same changed in the record with Punjab School Education Board more than five years after his removal, he cannot be permitted to raise a claim for his re- instatement in service. The claim is otherwise also highly belated for the reason that admittedly the petitioner was removed from service on 10.12.2002. The claim for re-engagement was to be made in the year 2008 and further the same having been rejected at that time, the writ petition was filed in the year 2013 when in response to a fresh notice got issued by the petitioner, he was intimated vide communication dated 1.10.2012 that his claim had already been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.