HARINDER SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the members of the Municipal Council, Mansa. They pray that the appointments of respondents Nos. 5 to 23 to the posts of Clerks, Firemen, Drivers, Peons, Instructors etc. as made by the Council may be quashed. The primary ground on which the appointments are challenged is that the members of the Selection Committee had selected their relations. The merit was ignored. No specific criterion was followed. The interview was clearly a farce. Candidates who were either not eligible or suitable were selected and appointed. Seeing the illegalities, the petitioners represented. The first representation was submitted on May 7, 1994 followed by subsequent representations dated May 14, 1994 and July 22,1994. Mr Mandeep Singh, Joint Director, Local Bodies, Punjab, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. He conducted the enquiry in a totally illegal and arbitrary manner as the representationists were not associated with the proceedings. In fact, ''one Veeran Wanti d/o Shri Joginder Singh r/o Mandi Kalan, District Bathinda was appointed as Lady Instructor.'' She is ''the first cousin of Shri Mandeep Singh, Inquiry Officer. Therefore, he also did not care to take any action in the enquiry as he was adequately compensated on the appointment of his cousin.'' The petitioners have given details in respect of the irregularities committee by the respondents during the process of selection and appointment. In particular, details regarding the relationships and other irregularities in the process of slection and appointment have been given in para 16 of the petition. In the background of these facts, the petitioners pray that the appointments be quashed and the Respondent-Council be directed to make fresh selection in accordance with law.

(2.) Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Council, through its Executive Officer, it has been mentioned that the petitioners who are the Municipal Coucillors have no locus standi to challenge the appointments of respondents Nos. 5 to 23. The appointments had been made on the recommendations of the sub Selection Committee. The recommendations were approved by the Council. The petitioners are, thus, 'Rs. a party to the said resolution.....'' It has also been averred that the appointments have been challenged after a gap of three years. On the ground of delay alone, the writ petition should be dismissed. It has been admitted that ''Charanjit Singh is a son of the Municipal Councillor Shri Sukhdev Singh, but before his appointment order was issued prior sanction was got from the Director, Local Government.'' The candidates who were eligible and have been recommended by the Committee were appointed. It has also been stated that the posts were duly advertised. Requisition was also sent to the Employment Exchange as well as the Welfare Office. The candidates who appeared for the interviews were duly considered. Only the selected candidates were appointed in order of merit. On these premises, it has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) A separate written statement has also been filed by respondent No. 4, Mr. Narotam Singh, the then President of the Municipal Council. Besides repeating objections which have been raised on behalf of the Municipal Council, he was alleged that ''the petitioners have filed the instant petition for extraneous considerations.'' Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have ''connived.'' With regard to Petitioner No. 3, it has been pointed out that she was a candidate for the post of Clerk. She was not found suitable for the appointment. The petition has been filed as a ''matter of frustration.'' It has been pointed out that the posts were advertised on July 24, 1993. The interviews for the posts were held on August 5, 1993. The appointments were made in strict order of merit after recommendations had been duly approved by the Council. Various allegations made by the petitioners have been controverted.