SHILPA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Punjab Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') on requisition sent by the State Government advertized 80 posts of Assistant District Attorneys in the State of Punjab. A general category candidate, the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.56 of the merit list prepared by the Commission. Letters of appointment were issued on 29th September, 2014 to 78 candidates competing in various categories. They were asked to join within 15 days. Out of 78 selected candidates, 29 candidates did not accept the offers of appointment. This position was the settled position on 13th March, 2015. Information received by the petitioner through Right to Information Act, 2005 revealed that candidates up to Sr.No.52 of the general select list had been called by employment offers, while 5 candidates failed to join the posts. Out of these 5 candidates, 2 candidates had refused offers in writing while the process of appointment of 3 candidates was going on. The information received confirms that out of 38 posts meant for General category, only 34 posts were filled. The petitioner has not been offered appointment. Feeling aggrieved, he made a representation on 29th July, 2015 to the respondents to consider his case for appointment against unfilled vacancies.

(2.) On notice, the State has filed its reply and contests the petition. It is not disputed that out of 38 General category vacancies, 24 candidates were issued letters of appointment, who have joined service. For the second time, offers of appointment were made to 29 candidates out of which, 14 were of General category. Out of these 14 candidates, 11 candidates of General category were given appointment. Two candidates namely Deepak Mehta and Sandeep Ohri refused to join the service. The candidature of one Ankur Gupta, who had accepted offer of appointment, was cancelled for failure to appear before the medical board.

(3.) To examine the issue involved, the question to be determined is whether the vacant posts could be filled from the select list prepared in the same recruitment process or not, the State Government avers that it sought clarification from the Commission regarding activation of the merit list from next below the last candidate offered appointment to consider the names of 3 General category candidates for remaining 3 vacant posts and one in Scheduled Caste category and the advice was awaited. It is admitted that a fresh recruitment process has started. 80 new posts of Assistant District Attorneys have been advertised. However, 3 vacant posts of General category regarding which advice was sought were not included in these posts advertised. Further action, it is stated in the written statement, shall be taken on receipt of advice from the Commission, which is still awaited. In case, it is decided to fill up the remaining 3 seats of General category, offer of appointment shall be given to the petitioner also. The written statement rests at that.