BABU SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who are respondents in present Letters Patent Appeals successfully challenged the order of appointment of respondents shown in the writ petition from 4 to 25 as Revenue Patwaris. Whereas, the respondents whose appointment as Revenue Patwaris was quashed have filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 1 of 1990, the State of Punjab equally aggrieved of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge has filed a separate appeal bearing No. 480 of 1990. Inasmuch as both the appeals herein have been filed to challenge the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 8054 of 1989, we propose to decide these appeals by a common order.

(2.) The facts so far as the same are relevant for deciding these Letters Patent Appeals reveal that petitioners alongwith 187 other Patwari candidates were selected by the Departmental Selection Committee, District Patiala for regular recruitment on permanent posts in the year 1987. Candidates numbering 189 so selected by the departmental selection committee, Patiala were to be ultimately appointed against 120 vacant permanent posts of Patwaris contemplated in Patiala District on the completion of requisite Patwar Training that the selected Patwari candidates were undergoing at State Patwar Training School, Jalandhar. It has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that 186 Patwari candidates including the petitioners had submitted their joining reports to the State Patwar Training School, Jalandhar by 17th of April, 1989. The petitioners and other selected Patwari candidates were to attend the Patwar Training School from 19th of June, 1989. The writ petition as such came to be file on 15th of June, 1989 i.e. when the petitioners had so far not even started attending the Patwar Training School Course. The challenge to the appointments of respondents so arrayed in the writ petition was based upon the only ground that appointment by transfer of an employee working in the Irrigation Department as Revenue Patwari was not warranted by the Rules. On the sole contention, as mentioned above, the learned single Judge after scrutinising the relevant rules returned a positive finding that "Clause (iii) of Rule 10 provides for appointment by transfer of an officer already in the service of the State Government. The Patwaris working in the Irrigation Department whose conditions of service and recruitment are governed by the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Patwaris State Service Class III Rules, 1955 are the employees of the State Government and they can be appointed as revenue Patwaris by transfer as provided in Clause (iii) of Rule 10. Too narrow and rigid construction cannot be placed upon this clause. It cannot apply to only those employees whose services are regulated by the Rules. The appointment by transfer is a well recognized method adopted and approved in the Government service. Merely because the service condition and recruitment of Patwaris working in Canal/Irrigation Department and revenue patwaris are regulated by different set of rules, will not deprive the Patwaris working in the Irrigation Department for recruitment as Revenue Patwaris. Thus, I hold that the appointment by transfer of Irrigation Patwaris as Revenue Patwaris is fully justified under the Rules."

(3.) Even though, therefore, the sole contention of the petitioners was repelled in the manner as fully indicated above by the learned single Judge, the appointment of respondents as Revenue Patwaris was still invalidated on the ground that applications were invited for appointment by transfer from officials already working in the service of the State Government and all the employees similarly situated had the right to apply for the post and for consideration of their claim for appointment. Applying Article 14 of the Constitution and the judgment of the Apex Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR(SC) 555 the learned single judge held the method followed in offering the appointment suffers from arbitrariness and was, thus, void.