Punjab-Haryana High Court
Labh Singh & Another vs State Of Punjab & Others --Respondents on 8 November, 2012
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 894 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.11.2012.
Labh Singh & another --Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & others --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
***
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure P-9), whereby the claim of the petitioners for appointment as E.T.T/J.B.T Teachers under the Department of Education, State of Punjab has been rejected. Still further a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners as E.T.T Teachers against the two unfilled posts of E.T.T Teachers relating to S.C category, has been raised.
Facts in brief that would require notice are that both the petitioners belong to the reserved S.C category and possess the qualifications of B.A. B.Ed. The Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee (Primary), Punjab Education Department, State of Punjab issued an advertisement dated 2.4.2000 inviting applications for appointment to 7230 posts of E.T.T Teachers. It is not a matter of dispute that recruitment to the post of E.T.T Teachers is at the district level. In so far as the present controversy is concerned district Mansa would be relevant, wherein 303 posts were advertised out of which 61 were shown to be reserved for the CWP No. 894 of 2008 (O&M) -2- S.C category. The petitioners being eligible applied in response to the advertisement dated 2.4.2000 for the posts of E.T.T Teachers pertaining to Mansa district against the S.C Category. It is asserted that upon declaration of the result only 51 candidates were shown to have selected against the S.C category for Mansa district. The petitioners along with certain other candidates filed CWP No.6215 of 2002 in this Court praying for a direction for the respondents to fill up the vacant post of E.T.T Teachers against the S.C category. The aforementioned writ petition came to be disposed of vide orders dated 23.4.2002 with directions to the respondent-authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners therein as had been raised in the legal notice already filed. In compliance of the order dated 23.4.2002 passed by this Court in CWP No. 6215 of 2002 an order dated 7.9.2002 (Annexure P-
3) came to be passed, whereby the petitioners were conveyed that out of the 61 posts reserved for Scheduled Castes pertaining to S.C category, one post was reduced in the light of the corrigendum dated 25.5.2000 and accordingly, for Mansa district 60 posts of E.T.T Teachers were left and the same had all been filled up and the petitioners could not be selected and appointed on account of the merit position. It is asserted on behalf of the petitioners that in the order dated 7.9.2002 the District Education Officer (Elementary), Mansa had intentionally concealed a material fact that two candidates from the S.C category namely Pavittar Singh, Roll No.110862 and Baljit Singh, Roll No.110293 had not joined the post of E.T.T Teacher. Faced with such a situation the petitioners again approached this Court by filing CWP No. 6780 of 2003 with the assertion that two posts of E.T.T Teachers against the S.C category were infact lying vacant and the petitioners being next in order of merit had a vested right to be appointed CWP No. 894 of 2008 (O&M) -3- against these two posts. CWP No. 6780 of 2003 came to be disposed of on 5.5.2003 in terms of the following order:-
" Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the impugned order dated September 7, 2002 the figures mentioned in the last para of the order are factually not correct. According to him, out of the posts available for scheduled castes quota, two posts are still lying vacant. If that be so, petitioners are at liberty to bring it to the notice of the respondents.
We see no reason to interfere in the impugned order.
Petition is disposed of with liberty, as prayed for.
Sd/- Swatanter Kumar, Judge Sd/- Mehtab S. Gill, Judge."
In terms of the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 5.5.2003 the petitioners brought to the notice of the respondents that two posts of E.T.T Teachers meant for S.C category in Mansa district were still lying vacant and on the basis thereof raised a claim that the petitioners be given appointment against such posts as per their merit position. The petitioners even sought information under the provisions of the R.T.I Act as regards the number of candidates selected, offered appointment and subsequently having joined against the 60 posts of E.T.T Teachers against S.C category in Mansa district. In pursuance thereto vide letter dated 30.4.2007 issued by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Mansa the petitioners were informed that out of the 60 posts of J.B.T/E.T.T Teachers of S.C category pertaining to Mansa district, 60 candidates had been issued appointment letters but 58 candidates have joined and two candidates namely Pavittar Singh and Baljit Singh had not joined. CWP No. 894 of 2008 (O&M) -4-
Inspite of the fact that two posts of J.B.T/E.T.T Teachers belonging to S.C category in Mansa district were lying vacant on account of candidates having not joined in pursuance to appointment letters having been issued and the respondent-department not responding to the claim raised by the petitioners, CWP No.14204 of 2007 was filed by the petitioners in this Court. On 13.9.2007 a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the aforementioned writ petition in terms of noticing the claim of the present petitioners for appointment against the two vacant posts of E.T.T Teachers reserved for S.C candidates and directed the Director of Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab to take a final decision on the representation filed by the petitioners. It is in purported compliance of the orders dated 13.9.2007 that the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners seeking appointment to the post of E.T.T Teachers against the S.C category. It is such factual backdrop that has necessitated the filing of the present writ petition.
In the written statement filed on behalf of the State the broad facts have not been disputed. It has been admitted that pertaining to Mansa district 60 posts of E.T.T Teachers were reserved for the S.C category. In so far as two posts of E.T.T Teachers belonging to the S.C category still lying vacant, a stand has been taken justifying the passing of the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 rejecting the claim of the petitioners seeking appointment against such two posts on the ground that the process of recruitment for the 60 posts in question including the two posts presently lying vacant was completed in terms of selecting and appointing candidates in the order of merit and as such any vacant posts were to be carried forward and were liable to be filled up in pursuance to a fresh selection process. It CWP No. 894 of 2008 (O&M) -5- has further been argued on behalf of the State that mere selection does not vest a right in the candidate concerned for appointment.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the pleadings on record.
The facts of the present case present a classic instance of arbitrariness and complete apathy at the hands of a Welfare State while considering and rejecting the claim of an eligible candidate seeking public employment. The admitted position of fact is that in Mansa district 60 posts of E.T.T Teachers from the S.C category were to be filled up in pursuance to the selection process initiated in terms of issuance of advertisement dated 2.4.2000. Accordingly, 60 candidates had in fact been issued appointment letters. There is a clear admission with regard to two candidates belonging to the S.C category namely Pavittar Singh and Baljit Singh having not joined. The present petitioners being next in order of merit had been denied appointment. Resultantly, the petitioners along with certain other candidates filed CWP No. 6215 of 2002 first in point of time to fill up the vacant posts of E.T.T Teachers meant for S.C category in Mansa district in pursuance to the recruitment process in which they had participated and strictly in order of merit. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 23.4.2002 to consider the claim of the petitioners an order dated 7.9.2002 (Annexure P-3) had been passed but for reasons best known to the respondent-authorities the factual position as regards two candidates having not joined in pursuance to the appointment letters having been issued was concealed. Petitioners yet again approached this Court in terms of filing CWP No. 6780 of 2003 with the specific pleadings that two candidates had not joined on the post in question against the S.C category CWP No. 894 of 2008 (O&M) -6- and accordingly, such writ petition was disposed of in terms of granting liberty to the petitioners to bring such factual aspect to the notice of the respondents. At that stage information had also been sought under the provisions of R.T.I Act and in terms of communication dated 30.4.2007 (Annexure P-6) issued by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Mansa the petitioners were informed that only 58 candidates had joined in pursuance to 60 appointment letters having been issued and that Pavittar Singh and Baljit Singh bearing Roll Nos. 110862 and 110293 respectively had not joined. On account of the respondent-authorities having chosen to remain silent the hands of the petitioners were yet again forced to file CWP No. 14204 of 2007 which came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.9.2007 taking specific notice as regards the two vacant posts of E.T.T Teachers reserved for S.C candidates and accordingly, directing the respondents to decide the representation filed by the petitioners. The impugned order dated 28.12.2007 while rejecting the claim of the petitioners strangely is again silent as regards the two candidates who had been offered appointment and had not joined and such two posts lying vacant.
It is by now well settled that, if, a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. An advertisement/public notice merely amounts to an invitation to the qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to be post. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all the vacancies. However, it is equally well settled that the State would not have the license of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision CWP No. 894 of 2008 (O&M) -7- not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide and for cogent reasons. Reference in this regard is made to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported as 1991 (2) S.C.T 555.
It is not the stand of the State that all the vacancies in pursuance to the recruitment process initiated in terms of issuance of advertisement dated 2.4.2000 had been filled up. In that eventuality, in case a selected candidate after joining resigns or dies the vacancy so occurring would be liable to be filled up in pursuance to a subsequent selection process. However, the facts of the present case are otherwise. The State Govt. not only advertised 60 posts of E.T.T Teachers pertaining to Mansa district against the S.C category but also took a conscious decision to fill up all 60 posts in pursuance to a recruitment process in which the present petitioners had participated. Admittedly, two candidates namely Pavittar Singh and Baljit Singh had been issued appointment letters but they had not joined. As such there was no impediment in law in offering such posts to the candidates next in order of merit i.e. the present petitioners. Even a perusal of the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure P-9) would also reveal that there has been a complete non-application of mind at the hands of the appropriate authority. Even though, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.9.2007 passed in CWP No. 14204 of 2007 had required the respondent-authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment against the two vacant posts of E.T.T Teachers reserved for S.C candidates, yet, the impugned order is totally silent on such aspect. It is the fourth round of litigation that has been thrust upon the petitioners. Such action at the hands of the State smacks of arbitrariness and is violative of CWP No. 894 of 2008 (O&M) -8- Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure P-9) rejecting the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of E.T.T Teachers against the S.C category for Mansa district is quashed. Directions are issued to appoint the petitioners to the post of E.T.T Teachers against the two vacant posts against S.C category in Mansa district and such appointment will relate back to 28.12.2007 i.e. the date of rejection of their claim and the petitioners are held entitled to the benefit of continuity of service on the post in question as also other service benefits with effect from such date. It is, however, clarified that actual arrears of salary to the petitioners shall not be paid for the period in question i.e. w.e.f. 28.12.2007 till the date of their joining on the post.
Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 08.11.2012.
lucky Whether to be reported? Yes.