Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 has reiterated the arguments noticed above and has submitted in addition that the Rules of Business of the Govt. of Punjab as notified by the Department of General Administration on 25.02.1992 empower the Council of Ministers to grant relaxation of the Rules. Such power was exercised by the Council of Ministers and there has been no concealment of an information or error in exercise thereof. He further submits that the post in question had been taken out from the purview of the Punjab Public Service Commission and its prior approval had also been obtained before taking the post out of the purview. The Council of Ministers thereafter took a conscious decision considering the sacrifice made by Sardar Beant Singh, former Chief Minister and grandfather of the respondent No.5. He argues that the procedure as provided under law has been duly followed and the policy relating to compassionate appointment cannot be read into special recruitment as it would amount to assessing the appointment under a policy that did not 28 of 69 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057753 2023:PHHC:057753 govern such appointment. He also argued that the power of Judicial review of the High Court does not extent to substituting its opinion for the opinion of the Council of Ministers and if the procedure laid in law has been followed, a decision taken by the competent authority cannot be held to be bad merely because the constitutional Court does not agree to the priorities of the executive government. He submits that the power of judicial review is limited only to the extent of procedural review and not a substantive review into sufficiency of the reasons that may have weighed with the competent authority while taking a decision. He submits that the Govt. of Punjab had been making a special recruitments in the post as well in the same manner and that such appointments have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is contended that an appointment other than by means of promotion and/or transfer/deputation has to be construed as a direct appointment. He places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Arun Kumar and others versus Union of India and others" reported as (2007) 5 SCC 580. The aforesaid case relates to absorption of one Ms. Amrit Brar, an Assistant Commandant in CRPF as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Punjab Police alongwith all benefits including pay and seniority w.e.f. 09.06.1989 when she was appointed as Assistant Commandant in CRPF. The appellants who were Officers of the Punjab Police Service raised a challenge to her absorption and grant of benefits including pay and seniority on the ground that the same were contrary to the provision of the Punjab Police Rules, 1959. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. The matter was thereafter challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads thus:

29 of 69 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057753 2023:PHHC:057753 "7. At the outset, we may state that the country owes its gratitude to the brave officer, Shri Avinder Singh Brar, IPS, who was killed at the hands of the terrorists. The above facts show that Ms Amrit Brar was appointed rightly on compassionate grounds as an Assistant Commandant in CRPF on 9-6-1989. The State Government was right in initially appointing her as an Assistant Commandant in CRPF, since in 1989 terrorism was at its peak in the State and that her posting as an Assistant Commandant was relatively safer than her posting in Punjab Police. She was the only child of her old parents. She had to be, therefore, protected. However, that could not make her appointment a compassionate appointment. It was an exceptional appointment. There cannot be a second opinion on this count. After the situation improved, she was taken on deputation in Punjab Police. This was in 1993. We do not find any infirmity in the action of the State Government under the above circumstances in appointing Ms Amrit Brar as a deputationist even in Punjab Police Service. We make it clear that the Punjab Police Service Rules provide for two sources of recruitment. One is by direct recruitment, another is by way of promotion. Although, the said 1959 Rules do not provide for such appointment as a deputationist in the normal cadre, the Government, in exceptional cases, can appoint deputationists in Punjab Police Service. This is one such case. We do not find any infirmity in the action of the State Government in appointing Ms Amrit Brar as a deputationist in Punjab Police Service. She is entitled to those benefits under the above circumstances. Further, as stated above, Ms Amrit Brar stood absorbed in Punjab Police Service as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 11- 9-1998. Even her absorption has been made on giving relaxation, as 30 of 69 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057753 2023:PHHC:057753 indicated above. This was by way of one-time exercise in an exceptional case. The only dispute, therefore, is whether Ms Amrit Brar was entitled to one more benefit of seniority with effect from 9-6-1989."