BIKRAM SINGH RANDHAWA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are being decided by a common order because in all of them identical relief has been claimed by the petitioners.

(2.) Facts which are common to all the petitions are that in response to the advertisement issued by the Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, Patiala, for recruitment against 40 posts of Naib-Tehsildar ('A' Class) a large number of candidates including the petitioners submitted their applications. All the candidates except those belonging to the family of a person killed as a result of terrorists' action or a member of the family which had lost its bread winner in the riots in Delhi and other places in India during the year 1984, were called upon to appear in the written examination held by the Committee. Those who passed the written examination were interviewed by the Committee and on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the written examination and interview, a list containing 20 names was issued by the Chairman of the Commottee in May,1990. Second list containing 16 names of selected candidates was issued in June,1991. Names of most of the petitioners did not figure in either of these lists. The petitioners have challenged the selection made by the Departmental Selection Committee on the ground of arbitrariness and mala fides by alleging that the recommendations have been made by the Committee on extraneous consideration. The petitioners have also challenged the appointments of some of the private respondents by alleging that they did not appear in the written examination. Another common plea raised by the petitioners is that the candidates appointed against the reserved vacancies exceeded the outer limit of 50% and, therefore, the appointment of the candidates beyond 50% of the reserved posts should be declared illegal. Yet another common point raised by the petitioners is that two of the candidates belonging to general category did not join and the vacancies which were unfilled, have not been filled by appointing selected candidates.

(3.) Now a few facts may be set out with reference to individual cases. C.W.P. No. 12407 of 1991 (Rikram Singh Randhawa v. State of Punjab & Ors.,).