PRITPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 27.08.1999 (Annexure P-11/B) and also order dated 30.08.1999, whereby, the representation of the petitioner dated 03.08.1999 (Annexure P-11/A) has been rejected, Order dated 18.03.1996 (Annexure P-6) and report dated 26.10.1995 (Annexure P-7). A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) in the Backward Class Category with effect from the date the person lower in the order of merit has been appointed along with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that the Punjab Public Service Commission (respondent No.4) issued an advertisement dated 19.06.1993, which was published in the daily newspaper 'The Tribune'. Applications were invited for 64 posts of P.C.S. (Executive Branch) and Allied Services, out of which, 4 posts were reserved for the members of Backward Class category. Petitioner applied in the category of backward class finding himself to be eligible. He was issued roll number and thereafter, he appeared in the preliminary examination. On qualifying the same, he appeared in the main examination which was held in the month of February 1994. Being successful in the written examination, the petitioner was called for interview on 21.07.1994. Only one post was reserved for Backward class category in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) and three posts were reserved in the Allied Services. The name of the petitioner was figured at serial No.1 of the merit list in the category of Backward class. After his appointment, a complaint was made by one Sh. Sarvjeet Singh to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa in the month of December, 1994 alleging that the petitioner did not belong to Backward class category and the caste certificate appended by him along with his application form was forged. Said complaint was marked for enquiry to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Budhlada, District Mansa. The petitioner was called upon to associate with the enquiry. He produced all the relevant documents available with him including his annual family income from all sources, which was less than Rs.10,000/- per annum. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that it was found during enquiry that he did not belong to the Khati community. He made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa stating therein that the report was wrong as no proper enquiry was conducted. He requested for conducting fair enquiry by some independent agency after providing him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner came to know that after conducting the enquiry, the report was submitted to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms mentioning therein that the petitioner did not belong to Khati caste and his certificate appended with application form was wrongly issued. Petitioner was not considered for appointment and no appointment letter was issued to him. He made a representation. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms wrote a letter to PPSC (respondent No.4) for cancellation of candidature of the petitioner to the post of P.C.S. (Executive Branch). Subsequently, Shri Gurmit Singh (respondent No.7), who was lower in merit than the petitioner, was appointed to the post of P.C.S. (Executive Branch) vide order dated 18.03.1996. Thereafter, again the petitioner made a representation stating therein that the candidate lower in merit has been appointed, whereas, he is entitled to be appointed on the basis of his merit. A legal notice was also served upon the respondents by him but no action was taken thereupon.

(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in rejecting his claim and also by appointing respondent No.7 in his place being lower in merit.