AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Memo dated 5.3.2004 (Annexure P-10) issued by the DPI (Colleges), Punjab-respondent No. 2 declining to grant approval for the appointment of the petitioner as Sr. Laboratory Attendant.

(2.) The petitioner passed the matriculation examination from the Punjab School Education Board in March, 1996 in 1st Division by securing 400 marks out of 650 marks. He had also worked as Laboratory Attendant in a private Laboratory from August 1996 to March 2000. The College-respondent no. 4 is affiliated with Punjabi University, Patiala. The College is also in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State of Punjab to the extent of 95%. One Balbir Singh who was working as Sr. Laboratory Attendant in the respondent 4-College, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the month of December, 2002. The respondent-College issued an advertisement in different newspapers on 18.1.2003 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Sr. Laboratory Attendant, on regular basis. The petitioner applied in response to the advertisement. He was duly interviewed by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee prepared a merit list of the candidates that appeared. The petitioner was placed at Sr.No. 1 of the merit list. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, respondent No. 4 appointed the petitioner on the post of Sr. Laboratory Attendant in the Chemistry Department on 16.4.2004. He was given the regular pay scale of Rs. 5000-8100. The petitioner was placed on probation for a period of one year. Pursuant to the appointment, the petitioner has joined on the post of Sr. Laboratory Attendant. On 24.4.2003, respondent No. 4-College sought the approval of respondent no. 3 i.e. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee which runs the College-respondent No. 4, for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. By letter dated 17.5.2004, respondent No. 3 has approved his appointment. The case of the petitioner complete in all respect was sent by the College-respondent No. 4 to Punjabi University, Patiala as well as to the DPI (Colleges), Punjab-respondent No. 2 for approval of the appointment. Punjabi University, Patiala intimated respondent No. 4-College that since the post of Senior Laboratory Attendant is not a teaching post, the approval of the University is not required. Since DPI-respondent No. 2 had not granted the approval to the appointment of the petitioner, his period of probation was extended for a further period of one year by letter dated 16.3.2004. The only ground for extending the period of probation of the petitioner was the non-grant by the approval of respondent No. 2-DPI (Colleges). By impugned letter dated 5.3.2004 (Annexure P-10), respondent No. 2 declined to grant the approval with the following remarks :-

(3.) The respondents have filed written statements. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have admitted the case as pleaded by the petitioner. In paragraph 14 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4, it is stated that there are only two sanctioned posts of Senior Laboratory Attendants in the respondent No. 4-College which are aided posts. But the DPI has not communicated any rules, on the basis of which it can be said that the post of Senior Laboratory Attendant is a promotional post. On the other hand, the rules of Punjabi University, Patiala relating to the affiliated colleges clearly provide that the appointment of the non-teaching staff may be made by direct recruitment, promotion or transfer. Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules is reproduced as under :-