UTTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner impugns the selection and later appointment of Respondent No. 3 to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) as envisaged by the rules known as Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Class I Rules, 1976 (for short, the Rules). He pleaded the following facts.

(2.) Vide its circular dated November 29, 1984 (Annexure P. 3) to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State, the State Government proposed to fill in six vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) from amongst the Tehsildars Naib-Tahsildars against the quota of vacancies for the years 1978, 1980 and 1982, i.e., two vacancies which occurred and were earmarked for the year 1978 and similarly one and three vacancies earmarked for the other two years, i.e., 1980 and 1982 respectively The Government desired the Deputy Commissioners to send through proper channel the nomination rolls of Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars who fulfilled the conditions prescribed in Rule 9(5) of the Rules. One of the material guidelines laid down in the circular of the Government (Annexure P. 3) was that "separate nomination may please be sent in respect of vacancies concerning each year". As a result of this communication various Deputy Commissioners in the State recommended the names of various persons (Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars) including the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 for their selection and appointment to the Service. After considering the service record of these recommends the State Government directed four candidates including the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3, vide its letter dated April 9, 1985 (Annexure P. 4) to appear for interview in the office of the Punjab Public Service Commission for their selection/recruitment against the quota of vacancies for the year 1978. As a result of this interview the Commission (Respondent No. 2) recommended the name of Respondent No. 3 for appointment to the service. He has since been appointed to the Service.

(3.) The contention of the Petitioner now is that though he himself having been appointed as a Naib-Tehsildar with effect from March 12, 1976,--vide order Annexure P. 1 was eligible to be so considered and appointed to the service, yet Respondent No. 3 who had been appointed as a Naib Tehsildar for the first time, vide order dated September 22, 1979 (Annexure P. 2) was not so eligible to be considered for selection or appointment to the vacancy earmarked for the year 1978. Besides this it is also maintained on his behalf that the Rules do not envisage any interview by the Commission or any other authority and this process of selection was derogatory to the Rules. It is further maintained by him that fixation of a high percentage of marks (40 out of 100) for interview alone by itself vitiated the selection by the Commission being unreasonable and arbitrary. As against this the stand of the Government is that though it is a fact that in the year 1978 Respondent No. 3 was neither a Tehsildar nor a Naib-Tehsildar, yet at the time of the making of the recommendation by the Commission, he fully satisfied the requirement of Rule 9 and was thus eligible to be recommended by the Commission for appointment to the Service. It is also highlighted on its behalf that the Rules "do not lay down that a candidate recommended for a vacancy existing for a particular year should have been working as Naib Tehsildar/Tehsildar prior to the year for which a quota vacancy has to be filled in P.C.S. (E.B.)." Respondent No. 2, the Commission, while refuting the stand of the Petitioner with regard to the holding of the interview and the fixation of 40 percent marks for the same as untenable being not violative of any rule, has highlighted that: