Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. The further defence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that on account of shortage of staff the extensions from time to time have been given to respondent No. 3 is also unacceptable. It has come on record that respondent No. 3 was appointed as District Sainik Welfare Officer on 6.3.1987 (R-1). On 30.6.1992, he superannuated from the Punjab Government service on attaining the age of 58 years (R-2). However, on 27.7.1992 an order was passed giving re- employment to respondent No. 3 on the post of District Sainik Welfare Officer w.e.f. 1.7.1992 (R-3), whereas he was not qualified to hold the post of District Sainik Welfare Officer because he superannuated from the Punjab Government service on 30.6.1992. His tenure could have been only either up to 58 years or for a period of 10 years whichever is earlier. His re-employment from 1992 till date speaks volumes about the misuse of power by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Defence Services Welfare (R-3 to R-15). There is nothing in the orders (R-3 to R-15) which may show that any effort has been made by the Department of Defence Services Welfare to make regular recruitment on the post as per the Rules. The only advertisement, on which reliance has been placed, is dated 22.9.2010 (R-17) and five vacancies from General Category are sought to be filled up in the cadre of District Sainik Welfare Officer. Therefore, the defence taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is false. The department has shown venton disregard to the Rules and deserved to be castigated. Even the defence taken is false for the reasons best known to the respondents. The 'Rule of Law', which is the basic structure of the Constitution, has been substituted by 'Rule of Convenience and Favouritism'. Another line of defence pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is that the aforesaid posts would become available after this Court decides C.W.P. No. 20570 of 2010. Even that writ petition has been decided on 9.1.2012. The aforesaid defence does not have any important bearing on the issue because the respondents have only once attempted to make regular recruitment by issuing advertisement through Punjab Public Service Commission on 22.9.2010 (R-17). Accordingly, we hold that the appointment of respondent No.3 is absolutely illegal and is liable to be set aside.