KULTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of three petitions bearing CWP Nos. 15645, 15646 of 2011 and 3825 of 2012, as common questions of law and facts are involved. Challenge in the bunch of petitions is to the selection and appointment to the post of Information and Public Relations Officer.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that advertisement for 11 posts of Information and Public Relations Officer was issued by the Information and Public Relations Department, Punjab bearing No. PR (01/2009), which was published in 'Ajit' on 11.9.2009. In terms of the advertisement, total 11 posts were advertised, five of which were meant for General Category, one for Scheduled Caste, one for Scheduled Caste (Sportsman), two for Scheduled Caste (BM), one for Scheduled Caste (ESM & others) and one for Backward Class. The educational qualifications required were Master's degree in Public Relations and Journalism or Mass Communications or Journalism from a recognised University or Degree of aster of Arts in Punjabi or English from a recognised University and one year Post Graduate Diploma in Mass Communications or Journalism or Public Relations. As provided for in the advertisement, the candidates were required to appear for written test in the process of selection, which was held on 4.7.2010. The interviews were held from 6.12.2010 to 8.12.2010. In July, 2011, the selections were finalised, which are under challenge before this court.

(3.) The submission is that in the advertisement issued for selection to the post of Information and Public Relations Officer, no criteria had been laid down, which is a pre-requisite and in fact, had to be decided before the process of selection starts. He further submitted that it has been established from the record on the basis of information received by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act') that though part of the criteria for selection was laid down before the process of selection was initiated, however, certain conditions were put in later on. While referring to document (Annexure P-5), a part of the file noting which was obtained under the Act, it was submitted that criteria was initially prescribed by the Departmental Selection Committee in its meeting held on 12.3.2009 before the advertisement was issued, which clearly provided for marks of qualifications/publications, interview etc. Even the Departmental Selection Committee was constituted on 3.6.2009. After the advertisement had been published in the newspaper on 11.9.2009, the file shows that the issue was raised regarding award of marks for rural areas. While referring to an advertisement already issued on 5.9.2007 for recruitment of Teachers, it was mentioned in the office noting that provision had been made for grant of weightage of five marks for the candidates of rural areas. The aforesaid policy was approved by the Cabinet and further that the award of aforesaid marks was even upheld by this Court in Sudesh Rani v. State of Punjab, 2010 5 SLR 768. While referring to the aforesaid judgment, it was proposed to provide five extra marks to the candidates of rural areas, who passed their Middle and Matriculation examination from rural areas, as a result of which the total marks were increased from 100 to 105. The marks were to be awarded on production of relevant certificates at the time of interview. It was further mentioned in the noting that since the provision of aforesaid marks was not there in the criteria already prescribed, approval of the Chief Minister was required. The file was approved by the Chief Minister on 3.10.2010. The same was more than one year after the process of selection started and even the written test, as prescribed in the advertisement, had already been held on 4.7.2010.