PRABHA MARWAHA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Dr. Mrs. Prabha Marwaha and is directed against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, Annexures P-5 and P-6, whereby the operation of the two resolutions of the Municipal Committee (respondent No. 3) was suspended.

(2.) The facts necessary for the decision of this petition may be stated thus. A post of Medical Superintendent for the princess of Wales Zenana Municipal Hospital, Amritsar, (hereinafter referred to as the Zenana Hospital), fell vacant in 1973 and the Municipal Committee, in order to ensure that the work of the hospital did not suffer, appointed the petitioner against that post. The appointment was made on the 28th December, 1974 and was initially for a period of 2-1/2 months. The period was subsequently extended from time to time. In the meantime, reference was made to the Public Service Commission which advertised the post on the 10th February, 1974, and ultimately made the selection on the 28th May, 1974 by which respondent No. 4 was found to be the most suitable person to fill this post. On receipt of this letter from the Public Service Commission regarding the selection, the Municipal Committee passed a resolution on the 1st June, 1974, pointing out that respondent No. 4 did not fulfil the qualifications and also asking the Public Service Commission to recommend a panel of names out of which the Committee could made the final selection. By another resolution of even date the Committee granted extension to the petitioner for another period of 2-1/2 months. The Public Service Commission by letter dated the 28th August, 1974, insisted that a letter of appointment should first be issued to the selected candidate and the question of the grant of extension to the petitioner would then be considered by the Commission. Finally the Public Service Commission vide its letter, copy of which is Annexure P-10, did not accept the objection of the Municipal Committee and came to the conclusion that respondent No. 4 fulfilled the qualifications. The Municipal Committee was also informed through this letter that the Commission could not send panel, as this was against the rules. Before this reply could be sent, the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, vide orders Annexures P-5 and P-6, suspended the two resolutions by which extension had been granted to the petitioner, on the ground that the Committee had acted in excess of the power conferred by law and contrary to the interest of the public. It is these orders which are now sought to be challenged through this writ petition.

(3.) The petition has been contested on behalf of the State and respondent No. 4 who was the selected candidate and it was pointed out that under the rules the Public Service Commission was to make the selection of the suitable person and that the selection was binding on the Municipal Committee.