SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of C.W.P. No. 31.6 of 1987 and sixteen other writ petitions Nos. 455, 576, 727, 891, 943, 964, 1070, 1076 1208, 1220, 1878, 1907, 2068, 2350, 2681 and 3324 of 1987, as common questions of fact and law are involved in all these petitions. For appreciating the brief history of the case, facts have been taken from C.W.P. No. 316 of 1987.

(2.) The respondent State of Punjab through the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Revenue Department, Chandigarh, issued an advertisement published on 15th October, 1983 (Annexure P.2), by which applications were invited for 421 posts of Patwaris (Mal). A number of persons, including the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions, applied in response to the advertisement as all of them were Matriculates and had also passed the Patwar Examination, besides having undergone the Field Training. As the regular recruitment in response to the advertisement was bound to take some time due to non-functioning of the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board, ad hoc arrangements were made by making appointments to the posts of Patwaris. This ad hoc recruitment was challenged in C.W.P. No. 2374 of 1985 (Gurjit Singh etc. v. State of Punjab), and the same was set aside. This Court directed the respondents to make regular appointments of Patwaris within six months and further directed the State of Punjab to constitute the Subordinate Services Selection Board for the said purpose. The direction issued by 1. S. Tiwana, J. on 1st November, 1985, while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition (No. 2374 of 1985) was in the following terms :-

(3.) The Staff Selection Committees of the Revenue Department interviewed the candidates in each district and as a result of the interviews, recommendations of 215 persons were made by the Collector, Bhatinda district. They were therefore, accepted as Patwari candidates of Bhatinda district under rule 4(2) of the 1966 Rules. Aggrieved by their non-selection, the petitioners have challenged the selection of respondents Nos. 5 to 219 on various grounds.