Sardara Singh & Ors., etc. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 3033-34 of 1989
(With Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.4483-4485 of 1989)
(With Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.4483-4485 of 1989)
Petitioner: Sardara Singh & Ors., etc.
Respondent: State of Punjab & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 3033-34 of 1989
(With Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.4483-4485 of 1989)
(With Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.4483-4485 of 1989)
Judges: M.M. PUNCHHI & K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 17, 1991
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Punjab Revenue Patwari Class III Service Rules, 1963:
Rule 2(a) and 4(1) – Recruitment of Patwaris – Selection committee – Constitution of – Where a member has been nominated by virtue of his office, the incumbent in office was entitled to participate – Composition of committee and selection held legal and valid. (Para 3)
Interviews
Selection of Patwaris – Viva voce – On an average three minutes spent per candidate for interview – The same held to be sufficient – Punjab Revenue Patwari Class III Service Rules, 1963. (Para 6)
(Ashok Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 (Suppl.) 1 SCR 657 – Distinguished.)
Practice and procedure
Recruitment of Patwaris – Applications invited by putting up notice on the Notice Board – Grievance can be voiced by those who did not have the opportunity to make applications and not by appellants who appeared in the interviews.
Cases Reffered:
Ashok Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 (Suppl.) 1 SCR 657 – Distinguished. (Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
K. RAMASWAMY, J. :
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions and heard alongwith the appeals.
2. Common questions of facts and law arise in the appeals and hence are disposed of by a common judgment. It is not necessary to restate the facts, preceding the decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Gurjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (W.P. No.2374 of 1985). Suffice to state that the High Court in the said judgment, while allowing the ad-hoc appointments made by the Government of Punjab to the posts of Patwaris under the Punjab Revenue Patwari Class III Service Rules, 1963, for short ‘the Rules’ to continue for six months, directed the State Government to make regular appointments in accordance with the rules within the said period from the date of the judgment or else the ad-hoc arrangement would lapse. Pursuant thereto, since the Service Selection Board, Punjab was not constituted, the Government of Punjab by a notification dated August 26, 1986 amended rule 2(a) and empowered the State Govt. to authorise “other authorities” to make recruitment to the service. Accordingly the Govt. constituted a Committee for each District, by proceeding dated May 27, 1986 to make selection. For the District Committee of Patiala, the Dy. Commissioner, Patiala was the Chairman, the District Revenue Officer, Patiala, District Sainik Welfare Officer and District Social Welfare Officer (Scheduled Caste) were nominated as members of the Committee. The pending names of the candidates before the S. S. Board were sent to the Committee for selection. The District Collector invited applications from special categories, namely, children effected by the riots at Delhi, terrorists effected families in Punjab, etc. and issued call letters to 1210 candidates for interview. By the date of the interview Shri Piara Singh, the District Revenue Officer was transferred and his successor had participated in the selection. Out of 821 candidates appearing for interview, 189 candidates were selected; the list was prepared in their order of merit; and the Distt. Collector appointed 146 candidates and sent them for Patwari training and on their completion of it in a period of one year, they were appointed as Patwaris on probation. The selections were challenged by unsuccessful candidates in several writ petitions and by judgment dated February 28, 1989, the High Court dismissed the L.P. Appeal and the Writ Petitions. On leave under Article 136, the appeals arise from that batch.
3. The first contention of the the appellants that the Committee was not properly constituted and, therefore, the selection of the candidates are invalid has no force. Under rule 4(1) of the rules, as per amended rule 2(a) the authority authorised by the Govt. is entitled to make recruitment to the service of Patwaris. The Committee constituted consists of Dy. Commissioner as Chairman, the District Revenue Officer, Patiala, District Sainik Welfare Officer and District Social Welfare Officer (S.C.) as members. Undoubtedly, at the time when the Committee was constituted, Piara Singh was the District Revenue Officer. On his transfer, his successor had participated in the selection. We have seen the notification. The Dist. Revenue Officer, Patiala was nominated in official capacity. Therefore, the member having been nominated by virtue of his office, the incumbent in office was, therefore, entitled to participate in the selection of the candidates. It is true that the representation of the scheduled castes need be by an officer belonging to Scheduled Caste. The District Social Welfare Officer (Scheduled Caste) as required should be an officer belonging to the members of the scheduled caste. It is not uncommon that the Social Welfare Officer may be an officer other than one from the scheduled castes. But here in this case it is not the contention that the District Social Welfare Officer was not a scheduled caste officer representing the scheduled castes. Therefore, we find that the committee constituted was properly composed of the representatives enumerated therein. The composition of the committee and the selection of the candidates, therefore, are legal and valid.
4. It is next contended that the District Collector was not competent to invite applications afresh and selection of the candidates from out of those applicants is illegal. It is true that he is bound by the instructions issued by the Government in Annexure ‘D’ wherein it was stated that since the number of applicants are quite large in number, it would not be necessary to solicit candidate afresh from Employment Exchange or through public advertisement. But in paragraph 4 therein it was stated that priority categories listed in the proceeding dated April 24, 1986 will have to be given precedence over candidates from all other sources other than the regularisation of the existing ad-hoc Patwaris. It had given room to the District Collector to invite applications from those categories. Though it was a mistaken compliance on wrong impression, the selection of the candidates so applying does not become illegal. It was next contended that instead of calling the applications by publication in the newspapers, only notice was put on the Notice Board of the Collector’s office and some candidates submitted their applications in pursuance thereof and that is not a proper notification. Though we find that the procedure adopted by the Collector, in inviting applications is not commendable, but the grievance would be voiced only by the persons who did not have the opportunity to make applications within the prescribed period. But no such grievance could be raised by persons like the appellants. Under those circumstances, the procedure adopted, though irregular, does not vitiates the selection of candidates, ultimately made by the Committee.
5. It is next sought to raise a contention that none of the candidates from the priority categories were selected and this was used only as a lever to invite applications from the candidates other than those, some of which were ultimately selected and it is irregular. We find no substance in it. That apart it is a factual position to be investigated and that no such plea was raised nor argued in the High Court. Therefore, we cannot permit the appellants to raise this contention for the first time in this Court.
6. It is next contended that there was no proper opportunity given to the appellants in the interview. Only 15 hours were spent to interview 821 candidates and the selection, therefore, is a farce. This contention also was not raised before the High Court, but raised in these appeals for the first time. In the counter filed in this court, it was refuted. It was stated that they had spent 35 hours in total at the rate of 7 hours per day. That means they spent 5 days in selecting the candidates. The selection is for the Patwaris in the Class III service. The ratio in Ashok Yadav v. State of Haryana 1 has no application to the facts in this case. Therein the selection was to the Class I service of the State service and sufficient time was required to interview each candidate. In this case, on calculation, we found that on an average three minutes were spent for each candidate for selection. Rule 7 of the rules provides the qualifications, namely, pass in the Matriculation or Higher Secondary Examination; knowledge in Hindi and Punjabi upto the Middle Standard and good knowledge of rural economy and culture. The educational qualifications are apparent from record and need no interview in this regard. It could be seen that candidates normally hailing from rural backgrounds had presumptively good knowledge of rural economy and culture. Therefore, there is no need for special emphasis to ascertain their knowledge of the rural economy or culture. Under those circumstances much time need not be spent on each candidate for selection except asking some questions on general knowledge and aptitude for work as Patwari etc.
7. It is then contended that the written test, conducted by the previous Service Selection Board, was abandoned and only oral interviews were conducted. The selection, therefore, is illegal. Normally it may be desirable to conduct written test and in particular hand writing that which is vital for a Patwari whose primary duty is to record clearly entries in revenue records followed by oral interview. The rules do not mandate to have both. Options were given either to conduct written test or viva voce or both. In this case the Committee adopted for viva voce as a method to select the candidates which cannot be said to be illegal.
8. It is next contended that the appellants have now become over-aged and that they are 22 in all. Therefore, directions may be given to the Government to relax their age qualification and given appointments to them. We find no justification to give such a direction. Admittedly, the appellants have taken the chance for selection and they were not selected on the basis of comparative merits. Therefore, merely because appellants are carrying on the litigation, there cannot be any justification to give direction to the Govt. to consider their cases by relaxing the age qualification for appointment as Patwari. It is not in dispute that hundreds of candidates who could not be selected would in that event seek similar relief. Under these circumstances we do not find any cause to add to the selection and appointment of the candidates as Patwaris. The High Court, though for different reasons, has rightly dismissed the writ petitions. The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but without costs.
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions and heard alongwith the appeals.
2. Common questions of facts and law arise in the appeals and hence are disposed of by a common judgment. It is not necessary to restate the facts, preceding the decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Gurjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (W.P. No.2374 of 1985). Suffice to state that the High Court in the said judgment, while allowing the ad-hoc appointments made by the Government of Punjab to the posts of Patwaris under the Punjab Revenue Patwari Class III Service Rules, 1963, for short ‘the Rules’ to continue for six months, directed the State Government to make regular appointments in accordance with the rules within the said period from the date of the judgment or else the ad-hoc arrangement would lapse. Pursuant thereto, since the Service Selection Board, Punjab was not constituted, the Government of Punjab by a notification dated August 26, 1986 amended rule 2(a) and empowered the State Govt. to authorise “other authorities” to make recruitment to the service. Accordingly the Govt. constituted a Committee for each District, by proceeding dated May 27, 1986 to make selection. For the District Committee of Patiala, the Dy. Commissioner, Patiala was the Chairman, the District Revenue Officer, Patiala, District Sainik Welfare Officer and District Social Welfare Officer (Scheduled Caste) were nominated as members of the Committee. The pending names of the candidates before the S. S. Board were sent to the Committee for selection. The District Collector invited applications from special categories, namely, children effected by the riots at Delhi, terrorists effected families in Punjab, etc. and issued call letters to 1210 candidates for interview. By the date of the interview Shri Piara Singh, the District Revenue Officer was transferred and his successor had participated in the selection. Out of 821 candidates appearing for interview, 189 candidates were selected; the list was prepared in their order of merit; and the Distt. Collector appointed 146 candidates and sent them for Patwari training and on their completion of it in a period of one year, they were appointed as Patwaris on probation. The selections were challenged by unsuccessful candidates in several writ petitions and by judgment dated February 28, 1989, the High Court dismissed the L.P. Appeal and the Writ Petitions. On leave under Article 136, the appeals arise from that batch.
3. The first contention of the the appellants that the Committee was not properly constituted and, therefore, the selection of the candidates are invalid has no force. Under rule 4(1) of the rules, as per amended rule 2(a) the authority authorised by the Govt. is entitled to make recruitment to the service of Patwaris. The Committee constituted consists of Dy. Commissioner as Chairman, the District Revenue Officer, Patiala, District Sainik Welfare Officer and District Social Welfare Officer (S.C.) as members. Undoubtedly, at the time when the Committee was constituted, Piara Singh was the District Revenue Officer. On his transfer, his successor had participated in the selection. We have seen the notification. The Dist. Revenue Officer, Patiala was nominated in official capacity. Therefore, the member having been nominated by virtue of his office, the incumbent in office was, therefore, entitled to participate in the selection of the candidates. It is true that the representation of the scheduled castes need be by an officer belonging to Scheduled Caste. The District Social Welfare Officer (Scheduled Caste) as required should be an officer belonging to the members of the scheduled caste. It is not uncommon that the Social Welfare Officer may be an officer other than one from the scheduled castes. But here in this case it is not the contention that the District Social Welfare Officer was not a scheduled caste officer representing the scheduled castes. Therefore, we find that the committee constituted was properly composed of the representatives enumerated therein. The composition of the committee and the selection of the candidates, therefore, are legal and valid.
4. It is next contended that the District Collector was not competent to invite applications afresh and selection of the candidates from out of those applicants is illegal. It is true that he is bound by the instructions issued by the Government in Annexure ‘D’ wherein it was stated that since the number of applicants are quite large in number, it would not be necessary to solicit candidate afresh from Employment Exchange or through public advertisement. But in paragraph 4 therein it was stated that priority categories listed in the proceeding dated April 24, 1986 will have to be given precedence over candidates from all other sources other than the regularisation of the existing ad-hoc Patwaris. It had given room to the District Collector to invite applications from those categories. Though it was a mistaken compliance on wrong impression, the selection of the candidates so applying does not become illegal. It was next contended that instead of calling the applications by publication in the newspapers, only notice was put on the Notice Board of the Collector’s office and some candidates submitted their applications in pursuance thereof and that is not a proper notification. Though we find that the procedure adopted by the Collector, in inviting applications is not commendable, but the grievance would be voiced only by the persons who did not have the opportunity to make applications within the prescribed period. But no such grievance could be raised by persons like the appellants. Under those circumstances, the procedure adopted, though irregular, does not vitiates the selection of candidates, ultimately made by the Committee.
5. It is next sought to raise a contention that none of the candidates from the priority categories were selected and this was used only as a lever to invite applications from the candidates other than those, some of which were ultimately selected and it is irregular. We find no substance in it. That apart it is a factual position to be investigated and that no such plea was raised nor argued in the High Court. Therefore, we cannot permit the appellants to raise this contention for the first time in this Court.
6. It is next contended that there was no proper opportunity given to the appellants in the interview. Only 15 hours were spent to interview 821 candidates and the selection, therefore, is a farce. This contention also was not raised before the High Court, but raised in these appeals for the first time. In the counter filed in this court, it was refuted. It was stated that they had spent 35 hours in total at the rate of 7 hours per day. That means they spent 5 days in selecting the candidates. The selection is for the Patwaris in the Class III service. The ratio in Ashok Yadav v. State of Haryana 1 has no application to the facts in this case. Therein the selection was to the Class I service of the State service and sufficient time was required to interview each candidate. In this case, on calculation, we found that on an average three minutes were spent for each candidate for selection. Rule 7 of the rules provides the qualifications, namely, pass in the Matriculation or Higher Secondary Examination; knowledge in Hindi and Punjabi upto the Middle Standard and good knowledge of rural economy and culture. The educational qualifications are apparent from record and need no interview in this regard. It could be seen that candidates normally hailing from rural backgrounds had presumptively good knowledge of rural economy and culture. Therefore, there is no need for special emphasis to ascertain their knowledge of the rural economy or culture. Under those circumstances much time need not be spent on each candidate for selection except asking some questions on general knowledge and aptitude for work as Patwari etc.
7. It is then contended that the written test, conducted by the previous Service Selection Board, was abandoned and only oral interviews were conducted. The selection, therefore, is illegal. Normally it may be desirable to conduct written test and in particular hand writing that which is vital for a Patwari whose primary duty is to record clearly entries in revenue records followed by oral interview. The rules do not mandate to have both. Options were given either to conduct written test or viva voce or both. In this case the Committee adopted for viva voce as a method to select the candidates which cannot be said to be illegal.
8. It is next contended that the appellants have now become over-aged and that they are 22 in all. Therefore, directions may be given to the Government to relax their age qualification and given appointments to them. We find no justification to give such a direction. Admittedly, the appellants have taken the chance for selection and they were not selected on the basis of comparative merits. Therefore, merely because appellants are carrying on the litigation, there cannot be any justification to give direction to the Govt. to consider their cases by relaxing the age qualification for appointment as Patwari. It is not in dispute that hundreds of candidates who could not be selected would in that event seek similar relief. Under these circumstances we do not find any cause to add to the selection and appointment of the candidates as Patwaris. The High Court, though for different reasons, has rightly dismissed the writ petitions. The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but without costs.
