Punjab-Haryana High Court
Laldeep Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 March, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.6059 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11th March, 2013
Laldeep Singh and others
Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Anant Kataria, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
CM No.5790 of 2012 Counsel for the applicant does not wish to press this application and seeks permission to withdraw the same with liberty to the applicant to file a separate writ petition, if so advised.
Ordered accordingly.
CWP No.6059 of 2012 As per the averments made in the writ petition, respondent No.2 vide Advertisement dated 16.04.2011 (Annexure P-1) advertised 20 posts of Law Officers, one post for each District in the State of Punjab under National Rural Health Mission, Punjab Chapter, on contractual basis.
All the petitioners, being eligible and having requisite experience, applied for the aforesaid posts of Law Officers. Written test Civil Writ Petition No.6059 of 2012 (O&M) 2 was conducted on 04.06.2011 and all the petitioners were successful in their respective categories.
Respondent No.2 vide notice dated 04.07.2011 called upon the short-listed candidates as per their merit to appear for interview on 05.07.2011. It is the case of the petitioners that all of them obtained marks over and above the cut-off marks in their respective categories. The petitioners appeared before the respondents on 05.07.2011 for interview/counseling along with their original documents.
It is further pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that although the selection process was completed on 05.07.2011, but till date the respondents have not given appointment letters to the successful candidates and no reasons were assigned for non-issuance of the appointment letters. The petitioners also made a representation to respondent No.2 stating therein that although the selection process was completed but the appointment letters have not been issued. The petitioners filed CWP No.202 of 2012 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 04.01.2012 by giving a direction to the respondents to take a conscious decision as to whether or not they want to fill-up the posts of Law Officers (PNDT).
It is the grievance of the petitioners that instead of giving appointment to the petitioners, the respondents have issued instructions (Annexure P-10) to all the Civil Surgeons in the State of Punjab to retain PNDT Coordinators/ Law Officers on a consolidated remuneration on retainership basis. Thus, according to the petitioners, instead of giving appointment to them, the respondents have found a dubious method to Civil Writ Petition No.6059 of 2012 (O&M) 3 circumvent the earlier selection process and deny appointment to the petitioners and thus, a prayer has been made in this writ petition for quashing the instructions dated 07.03.2012 (Annexure P-10), with a further direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners in pursuance of the selection process which has already been completed on 05.07.2011.
The writ petition has been contested on behalf of the National Rural Health Mission, Punjab whereby it has been submitted that after issuance of the selection process, the respondents have taken a conscious decision not to fill-up the posts of Law Officers (PNDT) as in the Review Meeting held on 31.10.2011 it came to the notice of the respondent authorities that a total of 114 cases were filed prior to the year 2010 under The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short, 'PNDT Act') in various Districts of the State of Punjab and most of the cases have been disposed of, and as on 31.10.2011 there were 34 cases pending which were being defended by the District Attorneys in various Courts. It was further noticed by the respondent authorities that on an average, only one or two cases were pending in each District, and thus, the facts reflect that there were very few cases which were being instituted and the quantum of work to be handled was less than one case per month per District and consequently, it was concluded that because the work load/quantum of work to be handled by the Law Officers under this activity was by no stretch of logic sufficient enough to call for engagement of the Law Officers on regular/full time basis in any Civil Writ Petition No.6059 of 2012 (O&M) 4 of the Districts of Punjab, a decision was taken not to appoint the full time Law Officers and it was decided to engage the Law Officers on retainership basis on a lump-sum of ` 7,500 per month at the District level, if need be. It has been further stated in the written statement that even after the decision dated 04.01.2012 in CWP No.202 of 2012, a speaking order dated 20.07.2012 was passed by the respondent authorities. The said speaking order has also been placed on record as Annexure R-3/2 with the written statement and thus, a prayer for dismissal of the instant writ petition has been made.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the various documents placed before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the settled proposition of law to the effect that mere selection itself will not give any right to the petitioners to seek appointment. However, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the selection process has been circumvented by issuing Advertisement dated 07.03.2012 (Annexure P-10) whereby the Law Officers have been appointed on retainership basis defeating the rights of the petitioners.
The argument raised is wholly misconceived as learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that the persons to be appointed on retainership basis as per the Advertisement dated 07.03.2012 (Annexure P-10) cannot be termed as employees of the respondents.
Not only this, a perusal of proceedings of the meeting held on 31.10.2011 and the speaking order dated 20.07.2012 (Annexures R-3/1 and R-3/2 respectively) would show that the respondents have taken a Civil Writ Petition No.6059 of 2012 (O&M) 5 conscious decision after keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been found as a matter of fact that there is very less number of pending cases under the PNDT Act in the Courts of State of Punjab and the same are being defended by the District Attorneys/State Counsels.
Moreover, the petitioners have never challenged the speaking order dated 20.07.2012, which was passed in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 04.01.2012 in CWP No.202 of 2012, which was filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give them appointments in pursuance of the selection process as per Advertisement dated 16.04.2011.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to argue as to how the present writ petition was maintainable in view of the fact that for the same relief they had filed a writ petition in this Court which was disposed of by giving a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order and the said speaking order dated 20.07.2012 has never been challenged.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit in this petition.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE March 11, 2013 rps