MALKIAT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MALKIAT Singh herein complains of having lost on both ends. He lost the entire land that he possessed way back in the year 1993. Pursuant to the policy of the respondent-PSEB as reflected in its policy dated July 8, 1994, he was to be provided with a job. As mentioned above, petitioner complains of having lost both the land and the job on which he was selected pursuant to the policy mentioned above.

(2.) FACTS that constrained the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court need a necessary mention. During the year 1993 Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board) acquired 987 acres of land belonging to villages Lehra Mohabbat, Lehra Sondha, Lehra Dhulkote and Patti Karamchand Maharaj of Rampura Tehsil in district Bathinda for setting up of 2 x 210 MW Power Project at Lehra Mohabbat. From the land referred to above, petitioner was owner in possession of land measuring 10 Kanals 18 Marias. It is the positive case of the petitioner and it has not been denied that the aforesaid land was his entire holding and he was dependent upon this. On July 18, 1994, the Board in its meeting made a conscious decision to offer appointment to at least one member of those families whose land was acquired for the aforesaid purpose. In the same meeting a Committee was constituted comprising of Director (Personnel), Deputy Secretary (Estt.) and Deputy Secretary (Personnel) to invite applications from the affected families and to examine them so that at least one member of the affected families can be employed on priority basis in the Board depending upon the qualifications he possessed. On July 21, 1994 modalities were also laid down for inviting applications. It is the case of the petitioner that it was stipulated in the said guidelines that if all the members of such affected families could not be adjusted in the existing vacancies in Guru Hargobind Thermal Plant at Lehra Mobabbat, they could be adjusted in other disciplines against the existing vacant posts and even after creation of suitable posts depending upon the eligibility of a candidate. Pursuant to order Annexure P-1, and guidelines Annexure P-2, the Committee collected applications from the members of the family whose land was acquired for the aforesaid purpose. The petitioner submitted an application for the post of Homeopathic Doctor/physician in the Board as he had the qualifications of D. H. M. S and was also registered as Homeopathic Practitioner in the Register maintained by the Homeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab. In as much as the petitioner was eligible for appointment as Homeopathic Doctor on the basis of the qualifications possessed by him, his case was considered and he was assigned File No. 122-A in category-A of the village Lehra Mohabbat for the purpose of appointment as Homeopathic Physician. On May 7, 1997 (Annexure P-6) petitioner received a memo from respondent No. 3 for production of some documents as also to attend the office on May 15, 1997. Petitioner along with other applicants appeared on the date fixed and produced the requisite documents needed by respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 on November 26, 1997 vide memo of even date recommended names of 277 persons including the petitioner for appointment. It is further the case of the petitioner that out of 277 candidates recommended by respondent No. 3, only 205 candidates including the petitioner were finally selected by the respondent-Board and their selection list was prepared. Immediately thereafter, 173 out of 205 selected persons were offered appointment on different posts depending upon the qualifications possessed by them. The petitioner was assured that a Homeopathic Dispensary was likely to be opened at Lehra Mohabbat and for that purpose a post of Homeopathic Physician shall be created. One post of Homeopathic Physician was actually created on July 1, 1998 (Annexure P-7) to set up the Homeopathic Dispensary at Lehra Mohabbat. On the creation of the post aforesaid, respondent No. 3 on July 20, 1998 sent fresh recommendations to the (Personnel) Director thereby recommending appointment of petitioner against the above said newly created post. While the petitioner was awaiting his appointment as Homeopathic Physician, he was shocked to know the contents of memo dated September 17, 1998 whereby respondent Board sent requisition to the employment exchange to fill up vacancy of Homeopathic Physician by way of direct recruitment. Thus constrained, the petitioner contacted the Head Office of the respondent-Board and found that though in the list of priority appointments, he is the only eligible qualified and selected candidate for the post of Homeopathic Physician, yet his claim for appointment was not accepted on the basis of some decision claimed to have been taken by the Board on June 2, 1998 whereby it was restricted the benefit of priority appointment would be given to only those members of the families whose total acquired land was two acres or more. It is the case of the petitioner that in as much the land owned by him which was acquired was little less than two acres, his appointment despite selection had been withheld. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed for the relief that the petitioner should be given the appointment of Homeopathic Physician.

(3.) PURSUANT to the notice issued by this Court, respondent-Board entered defence and opposed the case of the petitioner. The cause of the petitioner has been opposed primarily on the ground that by the time post of Homeopathic Physician/doctor became available, the policy of the Board had since been changed. Vide change brought about as referred to above the eligibility for providing a job was that the concerned person should have at least two acres of land. In other words the land acquired from the person must be at least two acres. It is further the case of the respondent-Board that the application of the petitioner was scrutinised and it was found that the petitioner was overage. It may be mentioned here that the maximum age for the post under contention is 30 years and the petitioner at that time was 36 years of age.