Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1537 (PNJ)

Vijay Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2008-09-08

PERMOD KOHLI

body2008
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. This judgment of mine shall dispose of above-said two writ petitions as in both the petitions a common question i.e. non- consideration for nomination to Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) from the office of the feeding channel i.e. Ministerat Class-Ill is involved. 2. Petitioner Vijay Kumar joined the Ministerial Service as Class III on 07.03.1980. He has put in more than 10 years of service in that category and so is the position with Siraj Ahmed, petitioner in CWP No. 9793 of 1995, who also served in Class-Ill as a Clerk for a period of more than 10 years and was later on promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 1988. At the time of the filing of this petition, Vijay Kumar was working in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, whereas Siraj Ahmed was working in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer (C) Barpala. 3. Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch), Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), provides for selection of candidates for Register A-ll, from amongst the temporary members of Class-ll services and the Members of Class-Ill services, holding ministerial appointments and working in the office of the nominating authority or in the offices subordinate to him as mentioned in the Table attached thereto. 4. As far as these two petitioners are concerned, their Head of the Department was the Financial Commissioner, It is relevant to notice Rule 10 of the Rules, which is as under: "10. Selection of candidates for Register A-ll (1) Each of the authorities specified in the first column of the table below may submit to the Government in Form I attached to these rules, the nomination rolls of such number of persons as is specified in each case in the second column of the said table from amongst the temporary members of Class-ll Services and members of Class-Ill Services, holding ministerial appointments and working in its office or in the offices subordinate to it: Name of the Authority Nominations 1. Chief Minister 2 2. Speaker Punjab Vidhan Sabha 1 3. Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 1 4. Ministers and Ministers of State 1 each 5. Deputy Ministers 1 each 6. Chief Parliamentary Secretary and Parliamentary Secretaries 1 each 7. Chief Minister 2 2. Speaker Punjab Vidhan Sabha 1 3. Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 1 4. Ministers and Ministers of State 1 each 5. Deputy Ministers 1 each 6. Chief Parliamentary Secretary and Parliamentary Secretaries 1 each 7. Chief Secretary 5 Financial Commissioners 1 each Provided that during the operation of a Proclamation issue under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution of India in the States, the Governor may nominate two persons from amongst the temporary members of Class-ll Services and members of Class-Ill Services holding ministerial appointments and working in his office or in the offices subordinate to him. (2) No nomination roll in respect of a person shall be submitted under the provisions of sub Rule (1) unless such person : (a) is a confirmed hand and has completed 10 years continuous service under the Government; (b) was under the age of forty-five years on the first day of November, immediately; preceding the date of submission of names by the nominating authorities; and (c) is a graduate of recognised University. (3) The nomination rolls submitted under sub-rule (1) along with the service record of the candidate shall be forwarded to the Commission which shall consider the merits of each candidate and recommended such of the candidates, as are considered suitable for appointment to the service. (4) The names of persons recommended by the Commission under Sub- Rule (3) shall be entered in Register A-U in the order in which they are recommended by the Commission." In the Table appended to this Rule, referred to here-in-above, as many as seven authorities are prescribed for making such nomination. 5 In terms of the aforesaid rule, each one of the authorities were required to nominate the number of persons specified against their names. In so far as the Financial Commissioner is concerned, he was required to nominate one person. The qualifications for such nomination are prescribed under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10, where under a person becomes eligible having confirmed and has completed 10 years continuous service under the Government and is less than forty-five years of age on the first day of November immediately preceding the date of submission of the nomination and a graduate from the recognised University. These names were required to be forwarded to the Punjab Public Service Commission for consideration of suitable candidate for appointment to the service. These names were required to be forwarded to the Punjab Public Service Commission for consideration of suitable candidate for appointment to the service. For the purposes of nomination, the eligible ministerial employees working in the Punjab Government in the subordinate offices are required to be considered for such nomination. Both the petitioners were working in the office subordinate to the Financial Commissioner. Vijay Kumar petitioner was working in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, whereas petitioner Siraj Ahmed was working in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer (C), Barnala. Circular dated 24.03.1995,(Annexure P-l) was issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of Punjab, soliciting nominations from the concerned authorities for appointment to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch-Class-I), in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules referred to hereinabove. In paragraph 3 of this circular, it was specifically mentioned that the authority was required to recommend the names of the eligible personsfrom amongst the two categories, i.e. who are temporary members of Class-ll services and members of Class-Ill services holding ministerial appointments, as per the qualifications laid down in rules. Paragraph 7 of the aforesaid circular further provide for issuance of a certificate to the effect that all the eligible persons working under the nominating authority, were considered. 6. The grievance of Vijay Kumar writ petitioner is that this circular was never circulated in the subordinate offices of the Financial Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner nominated respondent No. 5. Smt. Veena Rani, who was working as his Personal Assistant in his own office without according consideration to all other eligible candidates in the offices subordinate to him. 7. The grievance of the petitioner-Si raj Ahmed, in CWP No. 9793 of 1995 is that circular dated 24.03.1995 (Annexure P-2) was never circulated in the subordinate offices and the eligible candidates in the subordinate offices were never considered. There are specific averments to this effect in the writ petitions which fact has not been denied by the respondents in the written statement. 8. It is admitted case that Despondent No. 5 who was recommended was not selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission. Vijay Kumar filed this petition seeking a direction for quashing the selection of the candidates and also for conducting his own interview for filling up the available vacancy from Register A-ll in respect to the selection process that took place in the year 1995. Vijay Kumar filed this petition seeking a direction for quashing the selection of the candidates and also for conducting his own interview for filling up the available vacancy from Register A-ll in respect to the selection process that took place in the year 1995. He has also sought consideration on the basis of the performance in the interview against the available vacancy. During the pendency of this writ petition, when the Punjab Public Service Commission constituted the Interview Board, the petitioner filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application challenging the constitution of the Interview Board. However, no order came to be passed in that Civil-Miscellaneous Application. 9. While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 27.09.1999, a direction was issued to interview Vijay Kumar-petitioner, but his result be not declared without specific orders of this Court. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner was interviewed by the Punjab Public Service Commission. Three names were recommended in the order of merit. Petitioner Vijay Kumars name was at Serial No. 1 and two more persons, namely, Udham Singh and Gurjit Singh were at Serial Nos. 2 and 3, respectively. These recommendations were made vide communication dated 04.03.2005. 10. One of the grievances of the petitioner is that despite recommendation by the Punjab Public Service Commission, the petitioner has not been appointed. It may be relevant to notice that order dated 27.09.1999, was modified by this Court and the result of the selection was kept subject to outcome of the writ petition. 11. It is contended by petitioner, Vijay Kumar, who is appearing in person that even though, there is no impediment for the appointment of the petitioner, yet in view of the subsequent order dated 15.03.2000, the respondents have failed to appoint petitioner-Vijay Kumar. Petitioner Vijay Kumar las placed on record copy of the communication lated 04.03.2005, recommending his name along with two other candidates for appointment along with C.M.7670 of 2005 in CWP No. 9715 of 1999. In the aforesaid communication, it is specifically stated that this recommendation is subject to the final decision of the High Court in CWP No. 9715 of 1999 filed by tine petitioner. One fails to understand as to why recommendation has not been implemented till date though there was no impediment for the same. In reply to this Civil Miscellaneous Application, the respondents have stated that the petitioners name was not nominated by the Financial Commissioner. One fails to understand as to why recommendation has not been implemented till date though there was no impediment for the same. In reply to this Civil Miscellaneous Application, the respondents have stated that the petitioners name was not nominated by the Financial Commissioner. This fact cannot be disputed that the petitioner Vijay Kumar names was not recommended by the Financial Commissioner. This is the main grievance of both the petitioners that at the time of nomination, the eligible persons from the subordinate offices were not considered. The petitioners were fully qualified at the time of nomination. There is specific averments made in the writ petition by Vijay Kumar-petitioner that he is M.A., LL.B., with excellent service record. He was also awarded President Silver Medal (Highest Census Medal) for his outstanding contribution in the "Census Operation-2001". During the last five years, petitioner Vijay Kumar has obtained four outstanding reports and one very good report and has also got three appreciation letters during this very period. He also fulfills all other eligibility criteria as laid down in. Rule 10 of the Rules for such nomination. 12. In the reply, the respondents have not disputed the eligibility of the petitioners. 13. It is pertinent to note that though Rule 10 of the Rules speaks of consideration of eligible candidates from the office of the nominating authority and office subordinate to him, however, no guidelines whatsoever have been laid down for selection of names when there are more candidates than the available vacancies during a particular period. The respondents have not come out with such guidelines or any valid and reasonable criteria. Keeping in view the Annual Confidential Reports of petitioner Vijay Kumar, it can be safely stated that there was no reason to deny the nomination to him. Thus, it is clear that despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria, his name was not nominated by the Financial Commissioner to the Punjab Public Service Commission for selection for which he was later interviewed on 10.02.2005, and recommended for appointment. Such denial was totally arbitrary. The name of the petitioner, Vijay Kumar, shall be deemed to have been nominated. 13. However, for future nominations, the State Government will lay down a proper criteria based upon service record, qualifications and other valid and rationale basis and it is directed that in future no nomination shall be made without laying down the criteria. 15. The name of the petitioner, Vijay Kumar, shall be deemed to have been nominated. 13. However, for future nominations, the State Government will lay down a proper criteria based upon service record, qualifications and other valid and rationale basis and it is directed that in future no nomination shall be made without laying down the criteria. 15. So far as the present selection is concerned, it is admitted position that two other candidates, i.e. Udham Singh and Gurjit Singh, who were at Serial No. 2 and 3 respectively, were also recommended for appointment along with petitioner- Vijay Kumar, Gurjit Singh has been Appointed. In view of the appointment of Gurjit Singh, there is no reason why the petitioner should not be appointed. Petitioner- Vijay Kumar, having been considered by the Punjab Public Service Commission and recommended at Serial No. 1 in the merit list for appointment, the competent authority will appoint him forthwith and bring him on Register A-ll for the recruitment process of 1994 on the basis of the recommendation made by the Punjab Public Service Commission vide communication dated 04.03.2005. 16. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the petitioner was wrongfully denied nomination, I direct that petitioner-Vijay Kumar be appointed on the basis of recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission against available vacancy. It is also directed that the petitioners appointment shall be considered with effect from the date Gurjit Singh was appointed and he will also be Entitled to be placed in the seniority list above the aforesaid person on the basis of the merits as per the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission, with all consequential benefits. Let the appointment of petitioner Vijay Kumar be made within a period of two months from today. 17. In so far as petitioner Siraj Ahmed is concerned, he shall be considered for nomination as and when any nominations are required to be made in future from his category subject to his eligibility. 18. In view of the above directions, both these writ petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs.