GURPARTAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order, we shall decide two civil writ petitions i.e. CWP No.8839 of 2014, the one facts are being culled out from, and CWP No.9162 of 2014. A writ in the nature of certiorari is being prayed for to quash the order dated 05.05.2014 (Annexure P-7), whereby the appointment of the petitioner, as Assistant Public Relation Officer, has been set aside in purported compliance of the decision dated 30.01.2014, rendered by this Court in CWP No.15645 of 2011. And further to quash order dated 05.05.2014 (Annexure P-8), vide which six Information and Public Relations Officers have been adjusted against the post of Assistant Public Relations Officers as a consequence of said compliance. It is maintained that since the aforesaid decision by this Court does not have any bearing on the selection of Assistant Public Relations Officers, thus, the petitioners, who are serving for the last about three years, be permitted to continue.

(2.) Eleven posts of Information and Public Relations Officer and twenty one posts of Assistant Public Relations Officer were advertised by the Information and Public Relations Department, Punjab, vide publication in "Ajit" on 11.09.2009. Records reveal that the departmental selection Committee headed by the Chief Minister, Punjab, finalized the criteria for selection to the posts in question, in its meeting held on 12.03.2009. Evidently, it provided marks for qualifications/publications, interview etc. Common advertisement, inviting applications from the eligible candidates, was published on 11.09.2009. Besides the qualifications, experience and other necessary details, it envisaged that candidates will have to appear in the written test that was common for both the posts. Therefore, if a candidate was eligible to compete for both the posts, he indeed could apply for both vide separate applications. Thus, there were three categories of candidates competing in this common process of selection i.e. first, those who had only applied and competed for the post of Information and Public Relations Officer; second, those who had only applied for the post of Assistant Public Relations Officer; and third category consisted of those candidates who had applied and competed for both the posts. It is the last category of candidates, we are concerned with in the present lis. Written test was held on 04.07.2010. As is discernible from the records, post written test, the issue in terms of the policy of the State as regards awarding five extra marks to the candidates, who had qualified their Middle and Matriculation Examinations from the schools in rural areas, was raised. Records reveal that in reference to another advertisement issued on 05.09.2007, for recruitment of Teachers, it was emphasized that a provision was made for providing weightage of five extra marks to the candidates from rural areas and the said policy was even approved by the Cabinet. It further recites that such weightage was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.04.2010 in Sudesh Rani v. State of Punjab, 2010 5 SLR 768. Thus, a proposal to provide five extra marks to the candidates in the aforesaid category was made. Since the provision for awarding five extra marks never found formed to be a part of the criteria, an approval of the Chief Minister was solicited. The Chief Minister approved the said proposal on 03.10.2010. Resultantly, the total marks were increased from 100 to 105. Candidates in the aforesaid category were required to produce the relevant certificates at the time of interview, which were held from 06.12.2010 to 08.12.2010. Benefit of five extra marks was awarded to all the candidates in the aforesaid category at the time of preparation of final select list in April, 2011, irrespective of the fact whether he was competing for the post of Information and Public Relations Officer or Assistant Public Relations Officer or both. Followed by appointments in July, 2011. Selection and resultant appointments to the post of Information and Public Relations Officer was assailed before this Court, vide CWP No.15645 of 2011, CWP No.15646 of 2011 and CWP No.3825 of 2012.

(3.) This Court, vide its judgment dated 30.01.2014, set aside the said selection on the ground that criteria for selection was changed not only after the advertisement had already been issued but after the written test had already been held. Secondly, a Full Bench of this in Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab and others, 2013 3 SCT 1, had declared that the policy of the State to award five extra marks to the candidates in the aforesaid category was ultra vires the Constitution and the judgment of the Division Bench in Sudesh Rani's case , which had affirmed the said policy, was specifically overruled. It would be apposite to make a brief reference to the findings recorded by this Court in this regard and the same read as thus: