JAGTAR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgement I dispose of four writ petitions, i.e. C.P.W. No. 3125 of 1996 (Jagtar Singh and others v. Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, and others), C.W.P. No. 9423 of 1995 (Jaswant Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others), C.P.W. No. 11873 of 1995 (Jaswinder Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others), C.W.P No. 2566 of 1996 (Vaishno Dass v. State of Punjab and others), as in the opinion of this Court all the four writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) First of all the pleadings of C.P.W. No. 3125 of 1996, which has been filed by Jagtar Singh and others under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala (hereinafter called 'the Commission') respondent No. 1; the State of Punjab (respondent No. 2) and Director of Horticulture, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 3). The prayer made in this writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus/necessary directions, directing respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to issue appointment letters to the writ petitioners with effect from 11.1.1996 as Horticulture Development Officers. It has been pleaded that the Government of Punjab through the Agriculture Department issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of Horticulture Development Officers in the month of May 1994. 54 number of posts were advertised in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 as per Annexure P1, and it was made clear that the educational qualification prescribed for the said posts was minimum of B.Sc. Agriculture and M.Sc. Agriculture would be given preference. For the post of Horticulture Development Officer the candidate possessing the qualification of B.Sc. with major subject as Horticulture would be given preference. Respondent No. 1, i.e. The Commission, which is the authorised Agency as per the Constitution of India and as per the Rules and Regulations prescribed by the State of Punjab for filling up all Class-I posts of the State of Punjab, objected to this proposed direct recruitment by the Department of Agriculture vide Annexure P1. The objection was accepted by the State of Punjab and respondent No. 1 was authorised to make the selection on behalf of the State. Thus in the month of December 1994 respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement (Annexure P2) in the local newspapers, inviting applications once again and this time 53 posts of Horticulture Development Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 were advertised . The following essential qualifications were prescribed :-

(3.) According to the petitioners, they were eligible as per advertisement and also fulfilled the prescribed preferential/essential qualifications. Petitioner No. 1 is an Agriculture Graduate from Punjabi University, Patiala, with Horticulture subject. He took the degree in B.Sc. (Agriculture) with Horticulture as major subject from Brajindera College, Faridkot. Similar is the position with regard to petitioners Nos. 5 and 6, i.e., Shinder Pal Singh and Jagsir Singh. Petitioner No. 2 took the degree of B.Sc. Agriculture from H.P Krishi Vishav Vidyalia, Palampur. Petitioner No. 3 took his degree of B.Sc, Agriculture with Horticulture as a major subject from the University of Ajmer from Maharishi Saraswati University, Ajmer from Swami Keshwasnand Maha Vidyaliya at Sangria, Rajasthan. Petitioner No. 4 also took the similar degree from the same University. Petitioner No. 7 is a B.Sc. Agriculture graduate with Horticulture as major subject from Guru Nanak Dev University. He is also a Postgraduate in Agriculture. On being satisfied that the petitioners fulfilled the requisite qualifications, respondent No. 1 called all the candidates found eligible, including the petitioners for interview in the month of June 1995 on various dates. At the time of interview original certificates of the petitioners were checked by the officials of respondent No. 1. Interview was conducted by the Members of the Commission as per their procedure and they had associated Horticulture Experts from Departments of Horticulture of different Agriculture Universities of the State for the purpose of interview. Shri Kuldip Singh Sandhu, Director, Horticulture, State of Punjab, as also Shri Lakhvir Singh Brar, former Director Horticulture, Government of Punjab, were also associated as Experts with the interview along with some other Experts from the Agriculture Universities on the subject. All the Members of the Commission and the Experts associated by with the interview had explicitly satisfied themselves that the petititioners were eligible and qualified in terms of their educational qualifications for the post of Horticulture Development Officer, as advetised. The result of the competition conducted by respondent No. 1 was duly announced by respondent No. 1 on 23.6.1995 and the petitioners were declared successful. All the 53 selected candidates received a similar letter from respondent No. 3 (Annexure P4). In this letter the petitioners were specifically asked to bring their certificates and the prescribed record etc. for re-checking showing that they had obtained Degrees of B.Sc. Agriculture with Horticulture as major subject. All the petitioners did not come to know from the office of respondent No. 3 as to why it had become necessary for them to reverify the certificates after respondent No.1 had satisfied itself along with the associated experts, about the qualifications of the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to appear in the office of respondent No. 1 once again so as to convince it about the essential qualifications. The petitioners submitted their certificates from their respective Colleges once again and also brought specific certificates from the institutions from where they had passed the essential qualifications. Later on the petitioners learnt from the Under Secretary of respondent No. 1, who confirmed to the petitioners that necessary letter had been issued by the Commission to respondent No. 2 that the petitioners were eligible and qualified as per terms of the advertisement for selection to the posts of Horticulture Development Officer. It is alleged by the petitioners that much to their shock, they learnt that on 11.1.1996 appointment letters had been issued only to 44 persons and the petitioners were excluded. They were excluded on the ground that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were not satisfied that the petitioners were eligible, as according to them, they did not possess the qualifications of B.Sc. Agriculture with Horticulture as major subject, as prescribed in the advertisement (Annexure P2). It is further alleged that the petitioners, who are much higher in merit in the various categories, to which they have been selected, have not been issued appointment letters, whereas the persons, who are lower in the order of merit, as per the recommendation of the Commission, have been issued the appointment letters. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that in C.P.W.No. 9423 of 1995 (which is also being disposed of by this judgment) the Commission took the stand that the candidates with the required essential qualifications for the post of Horticulture Development Officer, i.e., B.Sc. Agriculture with Horticulture as a major subject, were selected and under these circumstances the stand of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by not giving appointments to the petitioners on the ground of non-fulfilment of the essential qualifications, was untenable. The action the part of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has been challenged treating it as illegal and without jurisdiction mainly on the ground that all the petitioners had fulfilled the requisite qualifications, as laid down in Annexure P2, and that these respondents cannot alter or add any different qualification, which was not the requirement of the advertisement. Moreover, respondent No. 1, being a specialised and constitutional body, manned by experts in the field was satisfied on the basis of the testimonials furnished by the petitioners and for that reason the petitioners were interviewed by the Commission. Proper selection was made. The names of the petitioners were recommended to the government, which in an arbitrary manner and against the spirit of the Constitution of India, wants to set aside the selection on untenable grounds by giving twist to the qualifications prescribed in Annexure P2, more so when the stand of the Commission is also clear in its written statement filed in C.W.P. No. 9423 of 1995.