DAVINDER BRAR NEE SANDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed District Sports Officer (Women) in the Punjab State Sports Department in the grade of Rs. 25025500 in a temporary capacity with effect from 18th June, 1965 (forenoon). The appointment was made in a leave arrangement purely on a temporary basis. Her selection was made by a Selection Committee consisting of (1) Secretary, Labour, Printing and Sports Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, (2) Director, Sports and Youth Programmes, Punjab, Chandigarh, and (3) Assistant Director, Sports (W.), Punjab, Chandigarh, in the meeting held on 31st May, 1965. According to the petitioner, eleven candidates were called for interview, one of them being Miss Manjit Walia, respondent 4. This allegation has been denied by Miss Manjit Walia who has stated that she was never called nor did she apply for the job. Five candidates appeared before the Committee out of whom the petitioner was selected. At the time the petitioner entered service, there were four District Sports Officers (W.) already in service in the State of Punjab, their names being as under;

(2.) On 17th March, 1967, the petitioner made an application to the Director, Public Instruction (Sports), Punjab, for being made permanent against the vacany of Mrs. Jasbir Kaur and in reply thereto she was informed as under: "You are advised to compete along with other candidates for regular appointment against the post of District Sports Officer (W.) as and when the posts of District Sports Officers (W.) are advertised by the Government." In April, 1967, she made an application to the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Education Department, for regularisation of her appointment against the permanent vacancy caused by the termination of the services of Mrs. Jasbir Kaur. In that application she described her qualifications and achievements as under:

(3.) Comrade Bhan Singh Bhaura, M.L.A., asked certain questions in the Punjab Legislative Assembly on 23rd February, 1968, which concerned the petitioner. The Chief Minister informed the House that the services of the petitioner could not be regularised by the Government as she had not been appointed either through the Punjab Public Service Commission or on the recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee. Apparently, there is a difference between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 1 to 3, on the other, with regard to the status of the Committee that made the selection of the petitioner in May, 1965. According to the petitioner, it was the Departmental Selection Committee but according to the respondents it was not a regular Departmental Selection Committee, implying thereby that it had been constituted on an ad hoc basis.