INDERDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Punjab Public Service Commission (respondent No. 3) issued an advertisement No. X inviting applications for recruitment to the various categories of Class I Service posts like 16 posts of Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch), 4 posts of District Food & Supplies Controller, 8 posts of District Food & Supplies Officer, 3 posts of Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, 1 post of Assistant Employment Officer and Excise and Taxation Officers. The advertisement was issued in the year 1985 (Annexure P-1). In response to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner applied for his selection. In terms of the notification, a candidate was required to give three preferences. According to the averments made in the petition, his first preference was to the post of PCS (Executive Branch). Second. preference was for the post of District Food & Supplies Controller and the third preference was for District Food & Supplies Officer. He was issued roll number and the date for written examination was notified for 14.10.1985. It is stated that the test could not be conducted on the date fixed and in the meantime, a fresh advertisement was issued by the respondent Punjab Public Service Commission on 05.09.1987. In the fresh advertisement, 5 posts of PCS (Executive Branch) were advertised. District Food and Supplies Controller/Assistant Director Food & Supplies 8, District Food & Supplies Officers 14, Excise and Taxation Officers 22, Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies 3, Tehsildars 3, Assistant Employment Officer 1 and Labour & Conciliation Officer 3. Number of reserved posts were specified in both the advertisements. The said advertisement notice No. 4 (Annexure P-2) further specified that those candidates who had applied in response to the earlier advertisement No. X dated 09.03.1985 need not apply again. According to the petitioner, the second notification was in supplement to the first notification. However, it is admitted case of the petitioner that since he wanted to change subject which he had opted in the written examination earlier, he made a fresh application in pursuance of the second advertisement (Annexure P-2). He was issued roll number and participated in the written examination conducted in December, 1987. After the result of the written examination, petitioner was interviewed by the Commission and a final select list was issued. Petitioner's name was at Sr. No. 7 of the Select List. First five candidates were selected for PCS (Executive Branch) whereas petitioner was selected for the post of District Food & Supplies Controller as per his second preference. It is alleged that even after the selection, the appointments were delayed for a long time. Petitioner further states that he came to know that the respondent-State was making appointments to the PCS (Executive Branch) against five advertised vacancies as per Annexure P-2 and was not making appointments against the 16 vacancies advertised vide Annexure P-1, the first advertisement notice. Petitioner claims to have submitted a representation dated 16.01.1989 seeking his consideration for appointment to 16 posts of PCS (Executive Branch) advertised vide Annexure P-1. Receiving no response, he made number of other representations. Some of such representations have been placed on record. According to the petitioner, none of the representations has been decided. The petitioner was offered appointment as District Food & Supplies Controller for which he was selected as second preference. Petitioner joined his post of District Food & Supplies Controller on 22.06.1989.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking his appointment against one of the vacancies for PCS (Executive Branch) on the basis and ground notice hereunder :

(3.) As far as first contention of the petitioner is concerned, from the notification Annexure P-1, it appears that the number of vacancies mentioned were provisional and subject to variation. In the second notification 5 PCS (Executive Branch) vacancies have been notified. This notification further contains a stipulation that the number of posts are subject to variation. The contention of Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate is that the first notification was not superceded by the second notification rather the second notification was issued to supplement the first notification and thus the five vacancies were the additional notified vacancies and thus in all, there were 21 vacancies available for PCS (Executive Branch) service. The respondents having notified 21 vacancies, have filled up only 5. The petitioner being at Sr. No. 7 in the merit list had has a right to occupy one of the vacancies of PCS (Executive Branch) which was his first preference. In the second notification, it is specifically mentioned that those candidates who applied earlier in response to the first advertisement need not apply again. However in Para 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner specifically stated that he applied afresh in response to the second advertisement notice and he was issued a fresh roll number. This clearly indicates that the petitioner surrendered and abandoned his first application and his application was in response to the second advertisement. In absence of the reply of the respondents, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the total number of vacancies advertised and were available for recruitment as notified in the second notification i.e. five or combined notified in both the notifications i.e., 16+5 = 21. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that there is no stipulation in the second notification that this is in supersession to the first notification. At the same time, it also does not contain any condition that this is in supersession to the first notification. Be that as it may, the petitioner having applied afresh cannot take the benefit of both the notifications. There is no material on record to substantiate the contention of the petitioner that 21 posts of PCS (Executive Branch) were available for recruitment. According to the petitioner's own averment only 5 vacancies were filled up. It can thus be presumed that only five vacancies were available for recruitment as on the date of issuance of the second notification on 05.09.1987. This fact is further strengthened from the averments made in the writ petition itself wherein the petitioner has stated that 50 more vacancies were created and sanctioned w.e.f. 01.03.1989. It is not the case of the petitioner that 16 vacancies which were available were filled up during the interregnum between the issuance of the second notification and the creation of new vacancies. Though Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram has orally argued that according to his information, 16 vacancies which were originally advertised, were filled up on the basis of the select list prepared in the earlier examination before the issuance of notification (Annexure P-1). According to him, those vacancies could not have been filled up on the basis of the earlier selection when these vacancies were duly notified for recruitment. There may be substance in the argument, however, in absence of any such material on record, it is not possible for this Court to examine this issue. Under the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that only 5 vacancies were available for recruitment on the date of second notification.