Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 288 (PNJ)

Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

2018-01-22

B.S.WALIA, RAJESH BINDAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. This order will dispose of four appeals bearing LPA Nos. 102 to 105 of 2018, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts have been extracted from LPA No. 102 of 2018. 2. Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7.12.2017 dismissing the writ petition being highly belated has been impugned in the present intra-court appeal. 3. Briefly, the facts are that the State advertised 350 posts of Physical Training Instructors (175 male and 175 female) on 28.3.2001. The educational qualification prescribed was 'Matric along with Certificate in Physical Education' recognised by the Government of Punjab. Admittedly, the selection was finalized and appointments were made in the year 2001 itself. 4. Some of the candidates aggrieved against the selection on the ground that they possessed qualification higher than the prescribed in the advertisement filed CWP No. 11456 of 2001 - Amardeep Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 15045 of 2001 - Baljit Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another and CWP No. 13199 of 2001 - Paramjit Kaur vs State of Punjab and another. The same were admitted. Finally the writ petitions were dismissed on 20.4.2012, primarily on the ground that selected candidates had not been impleaded as party in the writ petitions. The aforesaid order was challenged by filing the intra-court appeal vide LPA No. 1214 of 2012 Amardeep Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others. The matter was disposed of on 12.3.2013, while noticing the fact that some posts were still lying vacant in the department, hence, the candidature of the appellants therein was directed to be considered against those posts, if found suitable, however, they had to be treated as fresh appointees. It is claimed that immediately thereafter the appellants herein got served a legal notice dated 20.3.2013, which was responded to by the department vide memo dated 23.6.2014, declining their prayer. Thereafter, present writ petition was filed on 12.9.2014, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge considering the fact that the selections finalized in the year 2001 are sought to be challenged after 13 years. 5. Thereafter, present writ petition was filed on 12.9.2014, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge considering the fact that the selections finalized in the year 2001 are sought to be challenged after 13 years. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issue regarding eligibility of the candidates, who were having qualification higher than the prescribed in the advertisement, was pending consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Manjit Singh vs State of Punjab and others 2010 (3) SCT 703 , and further some of the candidates had filed writ petitions, which were pending in this Court and were decided finally on 20.4.2012, the writ petition filed by the petitioners could not be dismissed on the ground of delay, as they had approached this Court immediately after decision thereof. It was further submitted that judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K.C. Sharma vs Union of India AIR 1997 SC 3588 , which was referred to at the time of hearing, has not been considered. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. 7. Undisputedly, the advertisement was issued on 28.3.2001 and even the selections were finalised in the year 2001 and appointments were made. The appellants, who were the candidates, felt satisfied with the rejection of their candidature, though they claimed that they possess higher qualification than prescribed in the advertisement. Some of the candidates had grievance, hence, they filed CWP No. 11456 of 2001 - Amardeep Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 15045 of 2001 - Baljit Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another and CWP No. 13199 of 2001 - Paramjit Kaur vs State of Punjab and another, in the year 2001 itself, which were admitted. Finally, the writ petitions were dismissed on 20.4.2012. In LPA No. 1214 of 2012 Amardeep Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others filed against the judgment dated 20.4.2012, the stand taken by the appellants therein was that they were not challenging the selection of the candidates, who had already been appointed, rather they are claiming relief for them only. In terms of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Manjit Singh's case (supra), their candidature could not be rejected as they were having qualification higher than the prescribed in the advertisement. In terms of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Manjit Singh's case (supra), their candidature could not be rejected as they were having qualification higher than the prescribed in the advertisement. The Division Bench sought information from the State as to whether there were any posts of PTIs still available as the selection had taken place in the year 2001. In response affidavit was filed pointing out that as per the total cadre strength, the posts already filled up and the posts lying vacant. This Court directed for consideration of the appellants therein, if found suitable for the posts, however, treating them as fresh appointees. It was thereafter that the present appellants sent a legal notice on 20.3.2013 to the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, claiming that their candidatures be also considered in terms of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Amardeep Singh's case (supra). 8. The aforesaid legal notice was responded to by the department vide memo dated 23.6.2014 stating that the recruitment having taken place in the year 2001, their candidatures cannot be considered at this stage. It was thereafter that the appellants preferred the writ petition, which was dismissed on account of delay and latches. 9. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants was that the legal issue regarding consideration of the candidature of the persons, who are possessing qualification higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement, was subject matter of Full Bench of this Court in Manjit Singh's case (supra), which was decided on 5.2.2010. It was opined therein that such candidates were required to be considered for the posts, hence, rejection of candidature of the appellants, who possessed higher qualification was wrong. 10. The fact remains that the advertisement was issued in the year 2001 and even the selections were finalized in the same year. May be the appellants herein were possessing qualification higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement, but the fact remains that they felt satisfied with the rejection of their candidatures and never raised any issue before any authority. The fact remains that the advertisement was issued in the year 2001 and even the selections were finalized in the same year. May be the appellants herein were possessing qualification higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement, but the fact remains that they felt satisfied with the rejection of their candidatures and never raised any issue before any authority. The candidates, who were aggrieved, filed CWP No. 11456 of 2001 - Amardeep Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 15045 of 2001 - Baljit Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another and CWP No. 13199 of 2001 - Paramjit Kaur vs State of Punjab and another, in the year 2001 itself, which were admitted and taken up for final hearing on 20.4.2012. Those were dismissed as the selected candidates had not been impleaded as party, apparently for the reason that any interference in the writ petitions and the consideration of the candidates, who were having higher qualification would have affected the final result. In LPA relief was granted to those appellants, as they were in Court since 2001. 11. The ground taken now that the issue regarding eligibility of the candidates, who were having qualification higher than the prescribed in the advertisement was pending consideration before the Full Bench of this Court, will not come to the rescue of the appellants herein, as the same was referred to be considered by Full Bench in Manjit Singh's case (supra) in the year 2010 and the advertisement in the present case pertains to the year 2001. 12. Even the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K.C. Sharma's case (supra), also does not come to the rescue of the appellants herein as the issue under consideration therein was regarding certain emoluments received by the employees working with the Railways, whereas in the case in hand, the issue is regarding selections, which were finalized way back in the year 2001 and the appellants herein thought appropriate to approach the Court after the issue was finally decided by this Court in the year 2013 and some of the candidates, who were alive of their rights had approached this Court immediately after the selections were made and were granted relief while molding the same in Amardeep Singh's case (supra). 13. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the present bunch of appeals. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the present bunch of appeals. The same are dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- in each case, to be deposited within two months with the Registry of this Court, for indulging in frivolous litigation. 14. In case of non-deposit, the matter be listed before the Court.