High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/10007/1999dismissed

Surjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2025-12-24Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari14 pages

!"#$%&&%%'

"#"(#) !"#$%*&%&%%'

+,"-!

!"#$%*&%&%%'

$ ./ & 01

! " #

'( ( "

++++ 1

2& ,

../..0

(

* $ $

2 3

) ,.

2 .

$ *45' $ 6

' 7 ')"" -

$ % $ '

8$ "

'$ ,, ,.

,990! :*#

7 % $

$ ''

;5 2

%' !<2'=

>'' #

,994 1

<$'$ =

:% %

'<$'$ =

!%' # ? '

',4 ,999

) ,.

' $

% "$$ >(

$ ( *

A A

% "$$ >(

@4 1

$' '

% "$$ $

<$'$ =

! %' # ?

,4 1

A ' A A ''

$ $

;

' ) ,;*

' ) ,;

) ,@9 ..

,994!

:,B#

" ' >(

'*45

' $

$ *: '

% <$'$ =

' '

,4 *

) .,

) *$

' *

' '

A @* ,940

: ' '

% "$$ >(: .

.* @;

,999! :*C,# ' $

,B;@

,@ '3 .* @, ,909 ! :,@# $'

$3$$ '$

%' *@ -

@* ,940

.* @;

' '

$ '' -

locus standi

$ 1

$ '

$ @* ,940 1

* ' ,4

% <$'$ =

''7

$ ''

3$ " ' >(

"-<!?# = "-<!#>

%'*45 /

'' ,0 @4 .@,." D

" :.

<$'$ <3

'.@ '

)

7:0C,999 @4

$ ! :.#

$ ., '

$ * 3 ''

$ -

' ) .00.@,. $

' ,0 @4 .@,. "8 ) ,@@@0,999

$ $

@, @/ .@,.

: ,0 @4 .@,. @, @/ .@,.

* ' ?

) B/0.@,. % D

" '

% D

''C * $

,0 @4 .@,. @, @/ .@,.

$ $

' '

1 $'

% D

$ '

' ;, @0 .@.;

' $

"1) That in nutshell controversy in the present case is as under: The respondent department has advertised one post of Kanungo meant for Handicapped category in the Newspaper on 24.3.1999 and the applications were also invited from various Employment Exchanges. The name of the respondent no. 4 was registered in Employment Exchange, Faridkot. The Employment Exchange Faridkot has sponsored the names of 20 candidates vide letter no. OCPН ОС по.7/99/1828 dated 7.4.1999 to the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot and the said letter was shown to be dispatched dasti vide diary no. 1828 dated 7.4.1999. The said employment exchange also sponsored the name of one candidate i.e. respondent no.4 vide letter no, OC PH

4 7/99/1910 dated 9.4.1999 and the said letter was also dispatched vide diary no.1910 dated 9.4.1999 as a supplementary list to the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot. The written test was held after 11.00 a.m. on 15.4.1999 and on the same date interview was held and the respondent no.4 was selected being at no. 1 in order of merit and joined as Kanungo on 27.4.1999 and continuing since then. The respondent no. 4 has cleared the Departmental Examination for the post of Kanungo as well as Naib Tehsildar and was given the current duty charge of Naib Tehsildar in the month of August 2012 and was regularized as Naib Tehsildar in September, 2019 and continuing as Naib Tehsildar 2.

That although the Employment Exchange, Faridkot has sponsored the names of 20 candidates vide letter no. OC PH OC по.7/99/1828 dated 7.4.1999, copy attached as Annexure R4/5 and said letter was dispatched by the Employment Exchange vide diary no. 1828 dated 7.4.1999, copy of which is attached as Annexure R4/6. The name of the respondent no.4 was sponsored by the Employment Exchange Faridkot vide letter no. OC PH7/99/1910 dated 9.4.1999, copy of which is attached as Annexure R4/7, and the said letter was dispatched vide diary no. 1910 dated 9.4.1999, copy attached as Annexure R4/8 as a supplementary list.

That it is further necessary to mention here that the respondent no.4 was informed by the Employment Exchange vide diary no. 1885 dated 9.4.1999 that he has to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot on 15.4.1999 for written test and interview. But the said letter was not received by the respondent no.4 and when the respondent no.4 came to know through News Paper that interview date has been fixed for 15.4.1999, so he had obtained the duplicate copy of letter no. 1885 dated 9.4.1999 on 15.4.1999.

That the respondent no.4 had appeared in the written test after 11.00 a.m. on 15.4.1999 and all those candidates who had appeared in the written test, their signatures were obtained. The signature of the respondent no.4 was also obtained on 15.4.1999 at sr. no. 21, copy of which is attached as Annexure R4/9, Thereafter the respondent no.4 had appeared for interview on the same date at sr. no 4, copy of which is attached as Annexure R 4/10 and the respondent no.4 had obtained highest marks in written test and interview i.e. 125 and being highest merit, he was offered appointment and joined as Kanungo on 27.4.1999 and working for the last more than 24 years. 5.

That the official respondents have committed a mistake while filing written statement that instead of attaching both the letters dated 7.4.1999 and 9.4.1999 by

which names of 20 candidates were sponsored vide letter dated 7.4.1999 and name of the respondent no.4 alone was sponsored vide letter dated 9.4.1999, the department has attached one list i.e. R2 showing the names of all 21 candidates whose names had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange Faridkot.

That it is necessary to mention here that the post was also advertised in the News paper and two candidates had applied directly to the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot and the claim of all candidates were considered who had applied directly or whose names have been sponsored by various employment exchanges and the written test was held on 15.4.1999 and those who appeared in the written test were called for interview on the same date. Those candidates who had appeared in the written test, their signatures were also obtained and the signature of the respondent no.4 is at sr. no. 21 as clear from R4/8 and the respondent no.4 who had obtained highest marks i.e. 125, hence selected/appointed and joined on 27.4.1999 and since then the respondent no.4 is working as Kanungo/Naib Tehsildar. The respondent no.4 has also qualified all departmental examinations meant for the post of Kanungo/Naib Tehsildar. Even the respondent no. 4 was awarded a appreciation certificate on 15.8.2015 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda. 7.

That the respondent no.4 is only sufferer because the employment exchange, Faridkot has sponsored the names of 20 candidates vide letter no. OC PH OC No. 7/99/1828 dated 7.4.1999 and the said letter was dispatched vide diary no. 1828 dated 7.4.1999. The name of the respondent no.4 was sponsored vide letter no. OC PH7/99/1910 dated 9.4.1999 and said letter was dispatched vide diary no. 1910 dated 9.4.1999 as supplementary list. If the department would have given the details of both the letters then there would have no confusion. What inadvertent mistake the department has committed is that instead of attaching both the letters by which the names were sponsored, the department has made a joint list of 21 candidates as R2. So the respondent no.4 should not suffer because of the said inadvertent mistake of the respondent department. 8.

That undisputed facts are that the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Faridkot had advertised the post of Kanungo meant for handicapped category vide advertisement dated 24.3.1999 and demand was also sent to various employment exchanges. Although the name of the respondent no.4 was recommended by the employment exchange, Faridkot in a supplementary list on 9.4.1999 and those candidates whose names were not sponsored by the employment exchanges and directly applied to the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Faridkot and their

5 claims were also considered for selection and appointment. It is not remotely the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 has not appeared in the written test as well as in interview and selected being highest in merit. So in these circumstances the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 4 does not suffer any infirmity.

That the respondent no.4 was examined by Civil Surgeon, Faridkot on 22.2.1995 and found 45% disability. Even the said medical certificate was duly enquired into by the Assistant Commissioner, Faridkot, and Civil Surgeon, Faridkot has certified that handicapped certificate dated 22.2.1995 has duly been issued by the office of Civil Surgeon, Faridkot. The said report is already on record as Annexure R4/4. At the instance of the petitioner the respondent no. 4 was again examined by the Medical Board and report to this effect dated 30.4.2001 is attached as Annexure R4/11. At the instance of petitioner Surjit Singh matter was referred to the Vigilance Department and the Vigilance Department hold enquiry in the year 2005 and the same has been filed, copy of which is attached as Annexure R4/12.

At the instance of the petitioner the respondent no.4 again medically examined by the Medical Board on 30.10.2015. The copy of the medical report of the Medical Board dated 30.10.2015 to this effect is attached as Annexure R4/13. Even the Vigilance enquiry was again closed vide letter dated 28.3.2016, copy of which is attached as Annexure R4/14. Again enquiry was conducted by Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot and in the said enquiry answering respondent was again medically examined by the Medical Board on 24.08.2017. The copy of the report of the medical board dated 24.08.2017 is enclosed as Annexure R4/15. So the respondent no.4 was medically examined from time to time and found that he was , having more than 40% handicapness and rightly selected and appointed and the appointment of the respondent no.4 does not suffer any infirmity."

" '

$ *'

' ''

% <$'$ <3

>( $ '.@ '

@4 7

$ '

$ ''

$ * '' '' % D

' '

" '

*45 -

$ ''

Per contra

' $

)

7:0C,999 @4 $ .@

<$'$ <3

$ * ' % ) ,9,@ @9 7

@.$ '

.* @;

,999 ''

' ,4

$ A A 7

$ '

' ) , ;

@4 ,999@9 ,999 '

' ' ! :.#

$ ., $

<$'$ <3

$ * ' '

'( '

" '

$ ' *45 '' ' '

2 $ '

<$'$ <3

>( '

@9 7

' ,4 ,999

A A 7

* " D

" $ ,0 @4 .@,.

" 7

$ $ ' @9 ! :*CB# 7

locus standi

$ ' ' '

@* ,940

<$'$ <3

.* @;

,999! :*C,# 7 '$

3$ $ &1 "

$ " :

locus standi'

E !#

2 E !#

$ *

% <$'$ <3

2 E ! #

$ *

'E ,;

>' '

" ' * locus standi

$ ) *

<$'$ <3

' ,4 =

locus standi '

2 ' '

<$'$ <3

$ $

$ ' '' ' ''

: $

.* @;

,999'

' $ <$'$ <3

$ * <$'$ <3

<$'$ <3

$ .@

) =":

7=") 0C99C:,B.B @0

% "$$ >(

dasti ) ,B.B @0 -

$'$

) =" 7:0C99C,9,@ @9 ,999

) ,9,@ @9 ,999 '

% "$$ >( -

' ,, @@ ,4 ,999

' *

) ,

$( A A .0 $ ' 3$

) - ' .@,. ''$

$ .@,9

$$ $( '

@0 ,999 @9 ,999 '

$ .@ '

@0 ,999$ *' '

' '

$ ''.,

<$'$ <3

' <3

$ $ '

* ' '

''7 " ''' ''

* '' "

' % D

" ' >(

3' *

'":,;004 .@.*

* 3$

$ ..

,994 $' ' >( '

'' '' % D $ '

' '

>( <

,999

<$'$ <3

>( >

3$ " ' >( ..

,994

*45'

$ '

"$$ >( $

" '

'%'"

,994 '

" '

>( $ :,B 7 3$ '

;@ .@@,

* *45

'$ $'

% $

% $ '

.@@4

$' '

;, ,@ .@@4! :*C,.# 7 3$

$ ' .* @B .@,0 $ ' */5 7$ '

&1< "

,@ ,@ .@.;

' 'D!%'#

&1< "

%'"

( $ $''

%''''

2 $ '

% <$'$ <3

A A'

./ !3$ '# $ ' '

%*&%&%%'

!1 #

( C C)