MOHINDER PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohinder Pal has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents, including Jagdish Raj, respondent No. 4, with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 22.12.1994 (Annexure P9), vide which the representation of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Draughtsman (Civil) was declined and the petitioner further prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to consider and appoint him on the post of Junior Draughtsman, in view of the directions of the Government of India dated 23.3.1983.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that he successfully completed apprenticeship training course for a period of three years from the Director, Technical Education, Punjab, and a certificate to that effect was also issued to him. Thereafter the petitioner came to know that some post of Tracers were lying vacant in the office of respondent No. 2 (Chief Architect. Punjab, Chandigarh). The petitioner was a dependent of an Ex- serviceman. Accordingly he requested respondent No. 2 to consider him for appointment to the post of Tracer in the reserved category of Ex-servicemen. At that time two posts of Tracers were available, which were reserved for Ex-servicemen. One post was filled from the General Cate- gory and respondent No. 2 further requested the Secretary, Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab (for short 'the Board') vide letter dated 16.10.1985 to grant approval for conversion of one post of Tracer belonging to Ex-serviceman category to that of general category as no candidate belonging to ex-serviceman was available and this approval was granted. On 1.7.1992 the petitioner again requested respondent No. 2 to consider him for appointment to the post of Tracer (now designated as Junior Draughtsman) vide Annexure PS. The petitioner further alleges that he is fully eligible for the post of Junior Draughtsman but his claim has been rejected by respondent No. 1. The petitioner submits that in the light of the instructions dated 10.10.1973/23.3.1983 issued by the Government of India and adopted by the State of Punjab, the candidates who have passed the apprenticeship course arc to be preferred to the direct recruits and those trained apprentices are supposed to be absorbed in the industries subject to a minimum of 50% of direct recruitment vacancies. In spite of the fact that these instructions have been adopted by the State of Punjab, the official respondents have appointed certain persons on ad hoc basis, ignoring the claim of the petitioner, who belongs to the reserved category of ex- servicemen, as he is a dependent of an ex-serviceman. Respondent No. 4 Jagdish Raj has also been appointed by the official respondents in violation of the instructions issued by the Government of India and adopted by the State of Punjab. Finally, it was prayed by the petitioner that suitable directions be issued to the respondents to offer him the post of Junior Draughtsman; he being the dependent of an ex-service an as no ex-serviceman was available to fill the vacant post held by the Department.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. Official respondents filed one set of the written statement in which it was pleaded that according to Rule 4 of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 and subsequent instructions dated 8.4.1982, the dependents of Ex- serviceman can be considered for recruitment against the reserved vacancies meant for Ex-servicemen only if the suitable Ex-serviceman does not become available after exhausting the prescribed sources of recruitment. The petitioner is not an Ex-serviceman but he is a dependent of Ex-serviceman. Thus, he has no claim for being recruited straightaway. It was also pleaded that the petitioner has no right to claim appointment as Tracer straightway until and unless the reserved posts are advertised and he gets himself selected in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Government. Also it was stated that as per terms of agreement executed by the petitioner for undergoing apprenticeship training, it was not obligatory on the part of the employer to offer the appointment to the petitioner.