Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2527 (PNJ)

Surinder Singh Dhillon v. State Of Punjab

2010-09-06

M.M.KUMAR, RITU BAHRI

body2010
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner has been working on the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer (for brevity, BDPO) and he seeks recommendation of his name for inclusion in Register A-III so that he may be considered for appointment to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) [for brevity, PCS (EB)]. The petitioner claims that he fulfills all the requisite conditions for inclusion of his name in Register A-III as contemplated by the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) (Class-I) Rules, 1976 (for brevity, the Rules). 2. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner joined the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat as a Social Education and Panchayat Officer on 30.4.1991 and was subsequently promoted as BDPO. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms-respondent Mo. 1 issued a circular dated 5.3.2001, for recruitment to PCS (EB) from Register A-III from amongst the BDPOs (P-1). The names of various persons were recommended by the concerned departments. But the recommendations so made were not accepted on the ground that many meritorious candidates were left out. The petitioner could not qualify and his name was not sent because he did not fulfill the requirement of completing 10 years of service on the cut-off-date i.e. 17.4.2001. He was short of 13 days of 10 years. The vacancy belonging to the DDPOs/BDPOs for Register A-III could not be filled up. 3. Consequently the process was initiated again. A new circular was issued on 22.12.2004 for recommendation of the names from amongst, inter alia, BDPOs (P-2). It is significant to notice that in the circular dated 22.12.2004, it is stipulated that the names of suitable and eligible candidates were solicited for filling up three vacancies (2 from ETOs and 1 from DDPOs/BDPOs) pertaining to Register A-III for the recruitment process of 2001. It was further mentioned that the earlier panel as a whole was scrapped and fresh panel of officers having exemplary record needed to be obtained. The names were requisitioned within 45 days of the issuance of the circular and the cut-off-date fixed was 4.2.2005. The respondents have made one aspect categorically clear in the circular dated 22.12.2004, which needs to be highlighted and the same reads thus:- "......It is made clear that no nomination received after the cut off date will be entertained. The names were requisitioned within 45 days of the issuance of the circular and the cut-off-date fixed was 4.2.2005. The respondents have made one aspect categorically clear in the circular dated 22.12.2004, which needs to be highlighted and the same reads thus:- "......It is made clear that no nomination received after the cut off date will be entertained. The terms & conditions for determining the eligibility of the candidates to be nominated will remain the same as contained in the circular referred to above." 4. The case of the petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition as well as presented at the time of arguments is that once a new circular has been issued, which fixes new cutoff-date of 4.2.2005 then the eligibility of the petitioner for the purposes of completion of 10 years of service have to be considered with reference to the new cut-off-date fixed in the circular dated 22.12.2004 (P-2). It has been claimed that the length of service of the petitioner was about 14 years on that date. The name of the petitioner was not recommended and consequently he made a representation on 5.9.2008 (P-10). It is claimed that the petitioner would become in-eligible by virtue of age if his case is not considered in pursuance to circular dated 22.12.2004. 5. The stand of respondent No. 1 in the affidavit filed is that under Rule 9(5) of the Rules, general conditions for inclusion of the name of a candidate have been laid down, which was also made part of the circular. According to the aforesaid conditions, a person should be a confirmed hand and should have completed 10 years continuous service under the Government. He should also be less than 45 years of age on Ist of November of the preceding year and must also be a graduate of the recognised university. The other conditions are that he should not have more than one living spouse and should be from amongst Excise and Taxation Officer/DDPO/BDPO. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner did not fulfill 10 years continuous service under the Government up to 17.4.2001 because he joined the Government service pn 30.4.1991. The claim of the petitioner has been vehemently controverted by placing reliance on the circular dated 22.12.2004 (P-2), which stipulates that the terms and conditions for determining names were to remain the same as contained in the earlier circular dated 5.3.2001. The claim of the petitioner has been vehemently controverted by placing reliance on the circular dated 22.12.2004 (P-2), which stipulates that the terms and conditions for determining names were to remain the same as contained in the earlier circular dated 5.3.2001. It has been claimed that the cut-off-date for completion of 10 years of service was to be taken as 17.4.2001. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that the petitioner is making futile effort to use the delay caused in filling up the post of PCS (EB) by claiming that he has acquired eligibility between the period when the earlier circular was issued on 5.3.2001 fixing a cut-off-date of 17.4.2001 and the later circular issued on 22.12.2004. The respondents have made it absolutely clear that three vacancies belonging to the year 2001 were sought to be filled up by issuing a circular on 5.3.2001 (P-1) and on account of erroneous recommendations made by the authorities under the 1976 Rules, fresh recommendations of candidates with meritorious record were sought to be called for vide circular dated 22.12.2004 (P-2). It has been clarified in the aforesaid circular that the terms and conditions for determining the eligibility of candidates to be nominated, would continue to be the same as contained in the circular dated 5.3.2001. Accordingly, the eligibility condition of completing 10 years service continued to be the same and it was required to be fulfilled on the cut-off-date of 17.4.2001. The petitioner, obviously, did not fulfill the aforesaid condition as he was short of 13 days service in completion of 10 years. Once the petitioner was not found eligible under the terms and conditions of circular dated 5.3.2001 and the same terms and conditions were to apply then there is no escape from the conclusion that he continued to suffer from the same disability. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition and the same does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.