Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1548 (PNJ)

Sukhdeep Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2008-09-09

HEMANT GUPTA, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as successful candidate in the light of the report dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure P.4) and the special report dated 10.8.2007 (Annexure P.5), given by Lokpal Punjab. 2. The petitioner applied for Elementary Teacher Training Course for the session 1997-99 as a General Category candidate, to appear in the Entrance Test. The petitioner appeared in the Entrance Test conducted on 22.11.1997. The result of the Entrance Test was declared on 2.4.1998. The grievance of the petitioner is that the merit list of selected candidates or the candidates placed in the waiting list, was not disclosed. Thus, it would not be possible for a candidate to find his/her merit and the merit of the other selected candidates. It is further pointed out that as per the Prospectus and information book, in case seats in a particular reserved category fall in even number, the same would be divided in the ratio of 50:50 amongst the boys and girls and in case of odd number, 2-2 seats were to be equally divided amongst boys and girls and 5th seat to the category, which Was higher in merit. If there was more than one candidate at the same merit, the admission was to be given to the candidate, who was older in age. In respect of single reserved seat, the eligibility of the candidate was to be determined on the basis of merit earned in the respective category. 3. The grievance of the petitioner was that against the single reserved seat meant for the Para Military Forces, the candidate selected against the said reserved seat did not take admission. Therefore, the respondents ought to have called the candidate from the waiting list, maintained in the girls category. Two other girls candidates were selected, but not admitted since at the time of scrutiny of the documents, they were ineligible. The seats of aforesaid candidates were offered to the next eligible candidates. It is pointed out that the unsuccessful candidates filed number of writ petitions before this Court including the petitioner, who filed CWP No. 7972 of 1998. This Court directed declaration of the result, but the same was not declared within one month. The seats of aforesaid candidates were offered to the next eligible candidates. It is pointed out that the unsuccessful candidates filed number of writ petitions before this Court including the petitioner, who filed CWP No. 7972 of 1998. This Court directed declaration of the result, but the same was not declared within one month. The petitioner filed another petition bearing CWP No. 4450 of 1999, which was withdrawn by the petitioner on 5.4.1999. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that since the conduct of the Committee members was doubted, the petitioner filed a complaint against Shri Baldev Raj, member of the Selection Committee, who was then posted as Deputy Director (Establishment), Office of Director Public Instructions (Elementary Education) Punjab, under the Punjab Lokpal Act, 1996 (for short the Act). In the said complaint, the Lokpal made the recommendations on 10.8.2007. Operative part of the recommendations read as under :- "In short, out of 25 seats of general category of female candidates, two candidates did not join and both these seats were filled from amongst topmost candidates in waiting list, 7 seats of reserved category remained unfilled and as per the Prospectus and instructions, 3 seats were to be given to female candidates and 3 seats were to be given to male candidates from general category. As per clause (4) of the instructions reproduced above, the 7th seat was the right of the candidate having highest marks, whether male or female. The complainant was having 140 marks and the male candidate on top of waiting list had 138 marks. This seat was thus wrongly given to male candidate who was having lesser marks than the complainant. In case any procedure other than publicly issued by the Government was adopted, it was against the natural justice, a fraud on the candidates and in violation of the Govt, instructions as also order of the Honble High Court. Even if it be assumed that the procedure now alleged by the public man was being followed in the matter regarding similar selections in the State, it would still be against the letter and spirit of the instructions and will not justify the publicman-respondent to deny the right of the complainant under the cloak of such a procedure as the two wrongs would not make one right. Thus on thorough reconsideration of the entire matter, I am still of the view that there was irregularity in the admission and the complainant was wrongly deprived of the same i.e. her right to admission." In terms of the recommendations of the Lokpal, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 5 The basic question which requires to be adjudicated upon is whether the Lokpal under the Act could entertain a complaint on behalf of the petitioner in respect of the Entrance Test and admission to Elementary Teacher Training Course on the basis of allegations against a public servant. Under Section 9 of the Act, the Lokpal may enquire into any matter involved in, or arising from, or connected with any allegation of misconduct against public man made in a complaint under the Act. Under Section 10 of the Act, such inquiry can be made against a public man, within 5 years from the date of the occurrence of the misconduct. The public man has been defined under Section 2(k) of the Act. The said definition reads as under:- "2(k) "Public man" means a person who holds or has held the office of - (i) A Minister; (ii) a member of Legislative Assembly of the State; (iii) the Chairman and a Member of Board constituted by or under the State or Central Act or otherwise; (iv) The Chairman of any Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government or any company which is subsidiary of a company in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government; and (v) the Chairman and Member of any non-statutory Committee nominated by the State Government." 6. Shri Baldev Raj, member of the Committee is a public servant as he was working as Deputy Director (Establishment), Office of Director Public Instructions (Elementary Education) Punjab, and not as a public man as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act. Therefore, the Lokpal could not take cognizance of the complaint submitted by the petitioner. There is no allegation of any misconduct, as defined under Section 3 of the Act against any public man. Therefore, the Lokpal could not take cognizance of the complaint submitted by the petitioner. There is no allegation of any misconduct, as defined under Section 3 of the Act against any public man. Therefore, the present writ petition, seeking implementation of the recommendations of the Lokpal, is not maintainable as such recommendations are without any jurisdiction. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed.