Parshotam Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5537 of 1995.
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil). No. 16190 of 1994)
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil). No. 16190 of 1994)
Petitioner: Parshotam Singh
Respondent: State of Punjab and others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5537 of 1995.
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil). No. 16190 of 1994)
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil). No. 16190 of 1994)
Judges: A.M. AHMADI, CJI. & K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 05, 1995
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Recruitment
Recruitment to PCS (Executive) – Appellant, a ward of freedom fighter, not considered for the the P.C.S (Executive Branch) on the sole ground that his candidature could be limited only to reserved post – Punjab Public Service Commission directed to consider him for selection on merits.
JUDGEMENT:
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. :
1. Leave granted.
2. The Punjab Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 22.7.1989 for conducting examination for Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch & Allied Services) to fill in eight posts to the P.C.S. (Executive Branch), four posts of Excise & Taxation Officers and five posts of Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies. One of the post of Excise & Taxation Officers was reserved for the wards of freedom fighters. The appellants, who claimed to be the son of a freedom fighter applied. However, he gave his first choice of service as the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) and second that of Excise & Taxation Officer. It is an admitted case that there was no reservation in favour of the wards of the freedom fighters either in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) or against the posts of Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies. The appellant passed the competitive examination and also appeared in the viva-voce and as envisaged by the rules, a joint merit list was prepared and appointments were ordered to be made on the basis of that list in the order namely i) to the posts in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch), then to those of Excise & Taxation Officers and finally to those of Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies. The grievance of the appellant is that respondent no. 2, the Punjab Public Service Commission did not consider his candidature for the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) on the premise that as he had applied as a ward of a freedom fighter against the reserved post in the category of Excise & Taxation Officers, therefore his case was to be considered only for that category. Challenging the action of the Commission, the appellant filed a writ petition but the same was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
3. There is no dispute that the appellant in his application has given his order of preference and the first preference was to the post of P.C.S (Executive Branch). Since he happened to be a ward of a freedom fighter, he also gave his second preference to one of the posts of Excise & Taxation Officers reserved for such wards. Before the High Court the respondents in the first instance admitted in their counter affidavit that the appellant’s case was considered only for the post of Excise & Taxation Officer and was selected as such. But in an additional affidavit, they however averred that even if the case of the appellant had been considered for a post in P.C.S. (Executive Branch) he was not liable to be selected on the basis of merit as per the rules. Refuting the stand taken by the Public Service Commission the appellant also contended before the High Court that he secured more marks than respondent no. 4 yet he was declared successful for being selected in the P.C.S (Executive Branch). The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition holding that the selection of respondent no.4 could not be faulted.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there cannot be any dispute at all that the appellant’s candidature was not considered at all for the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) though that was his first preference on the sole ground that the appellant came in the reserved category and thereby eligible for the one reserved post for the wards of the freedom fighters. Having perused the records including the application, we agree with the learned counsel that the first preference of the appellant was P.C.S.(Executive Branch) and it is also clear that his candidature was not considered for the P.C.S (Executive Branch) on the sole ground that his candidature could be limited only to the reserved post. This, in our view, is clearly wrong.
5. Learned counsel has also placed some materials to show that two posts were filled up by other candidates not on the basis of merit but on the basis of compassionate grounds. Be that as it may, the definite stand taken by the appellant is that even according to the merits he stood higher in rank than respondent no. 4 on the basis of the marks obtained.
6. As we are satisfied that the candidature of the appellant was not considered for the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) on a wrong premise as mentioned above, we direct respondents nos. 1 and 2 namely State of Punjab and Punjab Service Commission respectively to examine the case of the appellant and if he is found eligible on the basis of the merit list and if he thus becomes entitled in the order of merit, he shall be selected for the post of P.C.S. (Executive Branch). Accordingly the appeal is disposed of with the above directions. However, there will be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Punjab Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 22.7.1989 for conducting examination for Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch & Allied Services) to fill in eight posts to the P.C.S. (Executive Branch), four posts of Excise & Taxation Officers and five posts of Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies. One of the post of Excise & Taxation Officers was reserved for the wards of freedom fighters. The appellants, who claimed to be the son of a freedom fighter applied. However, he gave his first choice of service as the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) and second that of Excise & Taxation Officer. It is an admitted case that there was no reservation in favour of the wards of the freedom fighters either in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) or against the posts of Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies. The appellant passed the competitive examination and also appeared in the viva-voce and as envisaged by the rules, a joint merit list was prepared and appointments were ordered to be made on the basis of that list in the order namely i) to the posts in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch), then to those of Excise & Taxation Officers and finally to those of Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies. The grievance of the appellant is that respondent no. 2, the Punjab Public Service Commission did not consider his candidature for the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) on the premise that as he had applied as a ward of a freedom fighter against the reserved post in the category of Excise & Taxation Officers, therefore his case was to be considered only for that category. Challenging the action of the Commission, the appellant filed a writ petition but the same was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
3. There is no dispute that the appellant in his application has given his order of preference and the first preference was to the post of P.C.S (Executive Branch). Since he happened to be a ward of a freedom fighter, he also gave his second preference to one of the posts of Excise & Taxation Officers reserved for such wards. Before the High Court the respondents in the first instance admitted in their counter affidavit that the appellant’s case was considered only for the post of Excise & Taxation Officer and was selected as such. But in an additional affidavit, they however averred that even if the case of the appellant had been considered for a post in P.C.S. (Executive Branch) he was not liable to be selected on the basis of merit as per the rules. Refuting the stand taken by the Public Service Commission the appellant also contended before the High Court that he secured more marks than respondent no. 4 yet he was declared successful for being selected in the P.C.S (Executive Branch). The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition holding that the selection of respondent no.4 could not be faulted.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there cannot be any dispute at all that the appellant’s candidature was not considered at all for the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) though that was his first preference on the sole ground that the appellant came in the reserved category and thereby eligible for the one reserved post for the wards of the freedom fighters. Having perused the records including the application, we agree with the learned counsel that the first preference of the appellant was P.C.S.(Executive Branch) and it is also clear that his candidature was not considered for the P.C.S (Executive Branch) on the sole ground that his candidature could be limited only to the reserved post. This, in our view, is clearly wrong.
5. Learned counsel has also placed some materials to show that two posts were filled up by other candidates not on the basis of merit but on the basis of compassionate grounds. Be that as it may, the definite stand taken by the appellant is that even according to the merits he stood higher in rank than respondent no. 4 on the basis of the marks obtained.
6. As we are satisfied that the candidature of the appellant was not considered for the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) on a wrong premise as mentioned above, we direct respondents nos. 1 and 2 namely State of Punjab and Punjab Service Commission respectively to examine the case of the appellant and if he is found eligible on the basis of the merit list and if he thus becomes entitled in the order of merit, he shall be selected for the post of P.C.S. (Executive Branch). Accordingly the appeal is disposed of with the above directions. However, there will be no order as to costs.
