Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurkirat Singh Dhillon vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 6 July, 2018
Bench: A.B. Chaudhari, Kuldip Singh
CWP No.21844 of 2016 (O&M) 1
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.21844 of 2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: July 06, 2018
Gurkirat Singh Dhillon
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Sr. DAG Punjab.
Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Gitanjali, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj, Advocate
for respondents No. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 23, 24, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34,
38, 42, 46, 48, 49, 51, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 67 & 68.
Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.9 and 17.
Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for respondent No.13.
Ms. Loveleen Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.14.
Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for respondents No.20 & 26.
Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.28 & 59.
Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No. 35.
Mr. Ithlesh, Advocate for Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for respondents No.36, 44, 54 & 63.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.37.
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 07:48:35 :::
CWP No.21844 of 2016 (O&M) 2
Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate
for respondents No.39, 43, 47, 52 & 56.
Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate
for respondents No.40, 41, 50 & 53.
****
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J
By the present writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge
the selection and appointment of respondents No.6 to 13 to the posts of Civil
Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate for Punjab Civil Services
(Judicial Branch), for the year 2013-2014 in accordance with selection list
dated 01.04.2014 (Annexure P-8) in the reserved category of ESM/LDESM
Gen inter-alia.
FACTS
Advertisement No.10 was published by the Punjab Public
Service Commission on 08.03.2013 (Annexure P-5) inviting applications for
71 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the
State of Punjab. Out of 71 posts, 10 posts were reserved for Ex-
Servicemen/Lineal Descendent of Ex-Servicemen General, Punjab. It is in
that category, the petitioner was qualifying and therefore, he applied under
the category of Lineal Descendant of Ex-Servicemen General (Punjab). The
petitioner passed in the written examination and had appeared for viva-voce
before the Selection Committee. The requirement of marks was minimum
50% in gross written examination and viva-voce for qualifying. The
petitioner in total obtained 49.6% marks as against requirement of 50%
marks perhaps because he had received only 22.3% marks in the viva-voce.
In any case, he could not make it to total 50% minimum qualifying marks.
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 07:48:36 :::
CWP No.21844 of 2016 (O&M) 3
He was thus, not selected at the result. He had appeared for viva-
voce/interview before the selection committee. But then he never knew
about the constitution of selection committee and that is why it was not
possible for him to challenge the constitution of selection committee which
held the interview. It is thereafter, after getting information under R.T.I., he
came to know about the factual aspects and hence, he has raised challenge in
the present writ petition. Hence, this petition.
ARGUMENTS
In support of the petition, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently argued that in the category of Ex-Servicemen/Lineal
Descendent of Ex-Servicemen (General), Punjab, requirement is two-fold,
namely that the candidate should be descendant of the Ex-Servicemen and
secondly, he should not already be in service. Accordingly, respondents
No.6 to 13 did not qualify in that as shown in the chart at Pages No.15 and
16 of the petition. They have been practicing in various Courts at
Chandigarh and District Courts in Punjab. He then submitted that Rule 4 of
the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 (for short 'Rules of
1982') say so.
The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the selection committee/interview committee, which held
the viva-voce was required to be necessarily along with the presence of the
Chairman of Punjab Public Service Commission. He submitted that the
Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission did not participate in the
conduct of the selection proceedings of selection committee/interview
committee for conducting viva-voce and therefore, in his absence, the entire
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 07:48:36 :::
CWP No.21844 of 2016 (O&M) 4
conduct of the process of viva-voce was fully vitiated and the selection
process will have to be knocked-down. He further submitted that the entire
process of selection was vitiated and at any rate as a sequel, the
appointments of respondents No.6 to 13 runs contrary to the Rules of 1982.
He, therefore, prayed for allowing the writ petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents raised a
preliminary objection that the petitioner having participated in the
selection/interview process is estopped from challenging the validity of the
selection committee on any count whatsoever and thus, cannot be allowed to
turn around having failed in the process of selection after having
participated.
At the outset, since we have decided to look into the merits of
the petition, we do not think that we should consider the said preliminary
objection.
Learned counsel for the respondents then submitted that as per
the constitution of selection committee and before the process of interview
was to take place, Registrar (Recruitment), Punjab and Haryana High Court
had written a letter dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure P-13) to the Punjab Public
Service Commission requesting the Chairman, Punjab Public Service
Commission, Patiala thereof to join interview board from 19.03.2014 to
27.03.2014. However, vide letter dated 13.03.2014 (Annexure P-14), the
Secretary of the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala informed the
Registrar (Recruitment), Punjab and Haryana High Court that it was not
feasible for the Chairman of the Commission to participate in the interview
process as the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 07:48:36 :::
CWP No.21844 of 2016 (O&M) 5
(Preliminary Examination) was to held on 23.03.2014 at Chandigarh.
According to the respondents, the Chairman, Punjab Public Service
Commission thus, declined to participate in the interview board for the
process that was undertaken by all other remaining members, i.e. the
majority of the interview board and therefore, it was idle to contend that his
absence would vitiate the proceedings. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of
the writ petition.
CONSIDERATION
We have carefully gone through the entire petition as well as the
documents. Rule 4 of the Rules 1982 reads thus:-
"4. Reservation of Vacancies (1) Subject to the provision of
rule 3, #13% of vacancies to be filled in by direct appointment
in all the State Civil Services and posts connected with the
affairs of the State of Punjab shall be reserved for being filled in
by recruitment of Ex-servicemen:
## "Provided that where an Ex-serviceman is not available for
recruitment against a reserved vacancy, such a vacancy shall be
reserved to be filled in by recruitment of the wife or one
dependent child of an Ex-serviceman, who has neither been
recruitment against a reserved vacancy under these rule:
### "Provided further that the wife or the dependent child of
the ex-serviceman shall be recruited against the reserved
vacancy subject to the conditions that:-
(i) he or she possesses the prescribed qualifications
and is within the prescribed age limits;
(ii) he or she is not already in service;
(iii) he or she will be eligible to avail the benefit only
once in life."
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 07:48:36 :::
CWP No.21844 of 2016 (O&M) 6
Rule 4 of the Rules of 1982 does provide that a candidate should
be the dependent and should not be already in service. The petitioner himself
is a qualified lawyer so also respondents No.6 to 13 who began their career
as Advocates in the legal profession. Since the contention is that respondents
No.6 to 13 are not dependents and are in service, we asked the pointed
question as to how the petitioner claims to be the dependent, though, he is
also an Advocate, the counsel for the petitioner did not have any answer.
That apart, what we find is that merely because a new Advocate enters the
legal profession, he cannot be said to be not dependent on the very first day
of he entering the legal profession. It is a matter of common experience that
a young lawyer entering the profession from the first day has to struggle for
being independent and it takes on a few years. It is no gainsaying that the
lawyer must be not dependent he having entered the profession from the
very first day. We, therefore, reject the submission that respondents No.6 to
13 could not be said to be dependent of Ex-Servicemen.
The next submission is that respondents No.6 to 13 could be said
to be in service. We find that respondents No.6 to 13 entered the legal
profession and not any service. In proper connotation legal profession
cannot be said to be 'service'. There is no fixed pay or salary or income or
the terms and conditions of service. The submission will have to be rejected.
The last submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner has been supported by him with many judgments, which he has
filed on record. We do not want to cite any of the judgments as it has not
been held in any judgment cited before us that refusal to participate in the
interview process by the Chairman of Punjab Public Service Commission, in
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 07:48:36 :::
CWP No.21844 of 2016 (O&M) 7
the wake of all other members participating in the interview process, would
vitiate the entire selection process. As stated earlier, on 11.03.2014, the
Registrar (Recruitment), Punjab and Haryana High Court requested the
Chairman to join the interview board for interviews to be conducted, but by
reply dated 13.03.2014, the said request was declined and the Chairman
expressed his inability to join interview board for selection process. Thus, it
is not that the Registrar (Recruitment), Punjab and Haryana High Court did
not inform the Chairman to participate in the selection process, but it was the
Chairman who declined the request to participate. All other members of the
interview board duly participated in the selection process, which fact is not
in dispute and accordingly, the selection process was completed. We,
therefore, hold that the selection process was not vitiated because of the
informed absence of Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission. On the
contrary, all other members being present except one (Chairman, Punjab
Public Service Commission), as per the law of meetings, the Coram was
available and no fault could be found out with the selection process.
Before we part with the judgment, we have noticed that no
meeting Rules for conduct of business appear to have been in place. But
then, in accordance with the law of meetings, the ordinary requirement of
Coram must be held to be 50% of the total members of the
selection/interview committee. We, therefore, held that till the time the
Rules for conduct of meetings are framed, the Coram shall be 50% of the
members of the selection/interview committee.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the present writ
petition must fail. In the result, we make the following order:-
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 07:48:36 :::
CWP No.21844 of 2016 (O&M) 8
ORDER
(i) CWP No.21844 of 2016 is dismissed;
(ii) No order as to costs.
(A.B. CHAUDHARI) JUDGE (KULDIP SINGH) JUDGE July 06, 2018 mahavir Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: Yes 8 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 07:48:36 :::