GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as an Assistant in the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh. He was nominated by the Head of Department for consideration by the Public Service Commission Patiala (hereinafter called the Commission) for selecting his name as accepted candidate to be entered in Registrar C in the year 1976 maintained by the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Class-1 (Rules 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). According to this Rule, the Chief Secretary has to maintain Registers A-I, A-II and A-III of accepted candidates from various sources like Tahsildars, Naib-Tehsildars, persons holding ministerial appointments and from amongst the Excise and Taxation Officers, etc. Register B was to be maintained of the accepted candidates as a result of competitive examination; while in Register C the names of the accepted candidates from amongst other officers or officials serving with the affairs of the State of Punjab who were not covered by any of the above referred categories were required to be entered. According to Rule 18 of the Rules, 50% of the vacancies were reserved from Register B, while specific vacancies out of the 100 vacancies available were reserved for accepted candidates from other sources. In Register C, 6th, 24th, 48th, 72nd and 94th vacancies were reserved. In the year 1976 the name of respondent No. 3 was nominated for consideration on Register C by the Director, Education Department (Schools), while the name of Shri Surjit Singh Chugh was recommended by the Director, Education, Colleges. The name of Shri Surinderpal Singh was recommended for being considered for inclusion in the same register by the Adviser Economic and Statistical Adviser, Punjab. The petitioner alleges that respondent No. 3 being a substantive member of the service of the department of Economics and Statistical Adviser, his name could not have been recommended by the Director, Public Relations (Schools), especially when the Director, Education (Schools) and Director Education, (Colleges) from one department of Education it had already nominated Shri Surjit Singh Chugh for being considered as accepted candidate in Registrar C. It was also averred that the name of respondent No. 3 could not be said to have been nominated by the head of his parent department, as the latter had already nominated Shri Surinderpal Singh, because as per Rule 15, the Head of each Department is competent to recommend only one name. The other grouse of the petitioner is that according to Circular letter No. 890 SWI 74/10619 dated 6th June, 1974, 25% of vacancies in all the cadres are reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes and that 1, 5, 9 vacancies etc. should have been gone to the members of the Scheduled Castes. Thus it is maintained that the Commission having already accepted some candidates for reserved posts First and 5th in the roster, the name of the petitioner being a Scheduled Caste should have been accepted against 9th vacancy out of the 10 vacancies, as it is still lying vacant and that the Commission having selected only one person, i.e. respondent No. 3 for being listed in Register C, was contrary to the spirit of sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Rules. Under these circumstances, the petitioner had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution, this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari or mandamus of any other writ order of direction, quashing the selection of respondent 3 and directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to make fresh selection in accordance with law and the reservation policy of the Government contained in Annexure P-2. It is further prayed that the Commission may be directed to make recommendation of all the candidates who in its opinion are fit for appointment in the service.

(2.) In return filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is contended that the Commission was well within its right to select the name of one candidate for being included in Register C, as no other candidate was found fit on merits. The State of Punjab admitted the factual position about the nomination of various names by the Head of the Departments of the State Government to be considered by the Commission for being entered in Register C as accepted candidates but maintained the letter, Annexure P-2 pertains to the reservation of 25% of posts only for Scheduled Castes candidates for direct appointment, i.e. for Register B only and that it is not applicable to recruitment to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) through nominations. It was further clarified that under the above referred rules, the nominating Authorities have full discretion to recommend any person out of those working in the department under their control and only advisory instructions have been issued that the nominating Authority may keep in view the nomination of deserving persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. It was further maintained that the nomination of respondent No. 3 by the Head of the Department was perfectly legal and as per rules. Regarding the claim of the petitioner for being considered at roster point No. 10 being a Scheduled Caste, it was stressed that the name of the petitioner could have been considered only against roster 6 for being placed in Register C in accordance with the provisions of Rule 18 and that he could not be considered as a reserved candidate for roster point 9 or 10. Respondent No. 3 also contended that his name was rightly nominated by the Director of Public Relations (Schools) in the capacity of the Head of the Department as is apparent from Annexure R-2. It was further maintained that Rule 15 of the Rules as well as Form 2 simply prescribes the length of service and other qualifications under a particular department of the State Government. Thus it was contended that even though the contesting respondent belongs to the cadre of Economical and Statistical Adviser, Punjab, but he being serving under the Director, Education (Schools), there was no legal impediment in nominating his name by the Head of his serving department.

(3.) Later on, the petitioner was allowed to file an affidavit vide order 19th December, 1988 to the effect that during the pendency of this petition, the respondent-State had appointed Sarvshri Malkiat Singh Dhaliwal and Amarjeet Singh from A-III Register and Sarvshri Khushi Ram and Gurpal Singh from A-I Register against the reserved vacancies during the year 1984. The State had not filed any counter-affidavit in this regard.