JAGDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.W.P. Nos. 18906 of 1995, 3989 of 1996, 5835 of 1998 and 10095 of 1998 are being disposed off by this judgment. The facts have been taken from C.W.P. No. 18906 of 1995.

(2.) The respondent-State of Punjab, through the Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, published an advertisement in the Newspaper Daily Chardi Kalan in its issue dated 10.1.1994 Annexure P-2 to the petition, inviting applications for 125 seats for admission to the two years Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course. The last date for the receipt of the applciations was fixed as 17.1.1994. 334 applications including those of the petitioners were received in respose to the notice. Vide Annexure P-1 dated 17.8.1995, the State Govenmment consituted a Committee for the purpose of making the selection to the said course and also notified that 250 seats in all were now to be filled in. The Selection Committee met on 25/26.8.1995 to settle the criteria for making the selection and took a decision that no marks were to be kept for the interview as this invariably led to criticism and that the selection would be made only on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination and for higher educational attainments. The petitioners were accordingly selected for the course in question and were required to report at Patiala on 12.9.1995, for the start of the course. The State Government, however, issued an order dated 29.9.1995 Annexure P-4/A to the petition intimating that the course was being discontinued for the time being and that the trainees should vacate the hostel immediately. The present writ petition has been filed impugning this order.

(3.) On notice of motion, the respondent-State of Punjab has filed two replies in this Court. In the first reply filed by Mrs. Gayatri Jain, Joint Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Animal Husbandry, it had been pointed out that the order Annexure P-4/A had been made as News items reporting serious irregularities in the calling of applications and the selection process with Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- per seat having been paid to the members of the Selection Committee, had been published. It has also been pointed out that the two Newspapers i.e. Chardi Kalan and Right Action in which the advertisement inviting applications had been issued, did not have a wide circulation in the State, with the result that the public at large did not have the information with regard to the calling of applications for the course. It had also been pleaded that though 125 vacancies had initially been advertised, 250 candidates in all had been granted admission and even in the actual admission process, various irregularities, such as entertainment of late and incomplete applications had been suspected. It has also been stated that the largest number of selected candidates were from District Bhatinda leading to an inference that the Committee had been acting under pressure from some senior functionary from that District. The State Government was, however, directed to file an additional written statement detailing the full material before it that had weighed in the issuance of the order Annexure P- 4/A, and another written statement has been filed by Mr. P. Ram, Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Animal Husbandry. In this written statement, it has been pointed out that after the filing of the first written statement, the matter had been entrusted to the Vigilance Department for a detailed investigation and the Vigilance Bureau had submitted a preliminary enquiry report on 12.8.1996 intimating that the allegations that had been levelled had not been proved. A copy of the report has been appended as Annexure R-2 to the reply. It has also been pleaded that this report had been examined in the Vigilance Department by the Legal Cell which had opined that the enquiry was still incomplete and further clarification be sought from the Vigilance Bureau, but as the matter had, in the meanwhile, become sub judice in the present writ petition, the Government had apparently expedited its decision and the Chief Minister had, on 22.1.1997, ordered that in view of the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry, no further action was called for and the matter be dropped as per the recommendations of the Vigilance Bureau. The file was then produced in this Court and after its return to the Department, the Join Secretary, Vigilance, vide his note dated 25.2.1997 referred the matter to the Principal Secretary, Vigilance, who further submitted the file to the Chief Minister with the following recommendations :-