Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sitara Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 31 January, 2020
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
(1)
CWP-16142-2014 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-16142-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31st January, 2020
Sitara Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Surinder Kumar Rohilla & Mr. Bhagoti Singh, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 29.10.2013 (Annexure P-15) vide which the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Social Education and Panchayat Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'SEPO') has been rejected.
It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner Shri Sat Pal Singh was working as a Panchayat Secretary under Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Harsha Chhina, District Amritsar. While in harness, he unfortunately died on 26.12.2001. On the death of his father, petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment to the post of SEPO being fully eligible for the said post as he had passed his graduation i.e. B.A. and had a Post Graduate diploma in Computer Application. The claim of the petitioner 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 18:42:48 ::: (2) CWP-16142-2014 (O&M) for appointment was considered by the respondents and he was given an option for appointment to the post of Tax Collector. Petitioner faced with the situation where he was finding the financial position of the family to be bad had no option but to take up the said option. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground to the post of Tax Collector vide memo dated 01.03.2002 (Annexure P-8). He, thereafter, came to know about the fact that similarly placed persons as the petitioner, whose fathers were working as a Panchayat Secretary, had been appointed to the post of SEPO. In this regard, reference of such persons has been made in para 10 of the writ petition. He, therefore, put forth his claim for appointment to the post of SEPO, as was done in the case of similarly placed persons, the claim of the petitioner having been rejected, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Upon notice having been issued, reply to the writ petition has been filed wherein the factual assertions as made by the petitioner have been admitted. What has been pointed out with regard to the petitioner is that having joined on the post of Tax Collector as offered and having availed of the said benefit, cannot be now permitted to opt and put forth his claim to the post of SEPO. This is based upon the assertion that the benefit of the instructions having been taken once, petitioner cannot claim discrimination on the basis of some other employee, may be similarly placed. Counsel for the State further contends that the father of the petitioner was working on the samiti side and the case of the petitioner was to be considered in that aspect, therefore, he could not be appointed on the Government side. He, 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 18:42:48 ::: (3) CWP-16142-2014 (O&M) therefore, contends that the said prayer of the petitioner asserting appointment to the post of SEPO cannot sustain.
Replication to the reply has been filed, wherein further instances have been given and it has been stated that one Jaspreet Singh has been appointed on the post of SEPO although his mother was working as JBT teacher in the Education Department, another person namely Dilbagh Singh has been appointed to the said post, whose father was a driver in the Block Development and Panchayat Office. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner has been discriminated against.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by this Court in CWP No.19031 of 2011, titled as 'Harsimran Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others', decided on 25.03.2013 and in CWP No.21444 of 2010, titled as 'Harwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others', decided on 30.01.2013. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Kant Kadam Vs. State of Karnataka & others (2002 (1) SCT 244), wherein it has been held that the petitioner, in such circumstances where similarly placed persons have been given appointment on a higher post whereas the petitioners were given a lower post despite the post being available, has been found to be discriminatory entitling such a person also to the same benefit. Prayer has, thus, been made for allowing the present writ petition as the factual aspect with regard to the similarly placed persons being appointed to the post of SEPO having been admitted.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 18:42:48 ::: (4) CWP-16142-2014 (O&M) for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the pleadings as also the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
The facts as has been stated above have not been disputed. The question which requires to be considered is whether there has been discrimination meted out to the petitioner while appointing him on the post of Tax Collector despite there is a post of SEPO being available and the petitioner qualified for being considered for appointment on the said post.
As is apparent from the facts, four people, who are similarly placed as the petitioner, have been appointed to the post of SEPO i.e. Sarabjit Singh son of Karnail Singh, Shamsher Singh son of Manjinder Singh, Jaspreet Singh son of Harbans Kaur and Dilbag Singh son of Milkha Singh. This clearly shows that the petitioner, who was also eligible for appointment to the post of SEPO, was not considered for appointment to the said post despite he having applied for the same and there being admittedly vacancy available (as has been stated by the counsel for the State, on instructions from Shri Avtar Singh, Senior Assistant, O/o Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Mohali) at the time of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Tax Collector. It has further been stated by the State counsel that as of now also, there are posts available of the SEPO.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the present case, the claim of the petitioner as has been made in the present writ petition would be covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 18:42:48 ::: (5) CWP-16142-2014 (O&M) Surya Kant Kadam's case (supra) especially in the light of the fact that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of SEPO as no justifiable reason has been given or assigned in not considering the claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis the persons, whose names have been mentioned above, who were similarly placed and have been appointed for the said post. The claim of the petitioner on principles as laid down by this Court in Harsimran Singh's case and Harwinder Singh's cases (supra) also could not be disputed.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. Direction is issued to the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner on the post of SEPO within a period of four weeks from today. Petitioner shall be entitled to the post of SEPO and the benefits attached thereto, with effect from the date he is issued appointment letter. Service rendered by the petitioner on the post of Tax Collector shall be taken into consideration for the retiral benefits.
CM-15993-CWP-2015 In the light of the disposal of the main writ petition, no order is required to be passed in this application as the same has been rendered infructuous.
Disposed of as such.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
st
31 January, 2020 JUDGE
Harish
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 18:42:48 :::