Deepshikha Garg v. State Of Punjab And Others
2023:PHHC:158170-DB
%&%'(%!) *"++
') ), -%!) *++ %%.&/ 0/ '1
23 3%)4 , 5 6 !)3/%'&
* 78 + 2 928 78 2+ 22 9: 9
!
" # %%. 02 6 ;<+ $ %
$&
'($))')'
#
# *!!
') +, !
- . / 0
+ /12
# ,
') + /
*
.
%
. 3'$))')' %
# 4+5 #.
#
+ / # ! )
! .
!
6!
3
!
#
'$ + /
!
$7$))')'%
!
$ !
. !
8
* # %
!
) !
.
+ /# .4
5 #
!
. #. ! #
*
'7'$)'))
+ /
! !
#
!
!
$:.
)$. ;
! # !
. + / %
# !
,
!
9 #
. . $'01 0$'1
#
* 0
#. *!# *! ;6! 10< !
!
1 )'$=0 >)'$= 1
#
6
3
# !
, ,
*
,
+ /
#.
*
$'01 )'$=
, # 0$'1 $'01
)'$= # $& $?
* 2 4.
Mr.D.S.
Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner urged before us that under Rule 10A(3) of the 2019 Rules, after a candidate is allocated the service as per his/ her merit-cum-preference, the candidate is to be offered appointment to that service which he/ she is required to accept or reject during the counselling session; if the candidate who is offered the allocated service refuses to conclusively accept the same then under Rule 10A(4) the next person in merit is to be offered appointment to the service in question; Navanjot Singh who was the only candidate higher in merit than the petitioner did not conclusively accept the BDPO's post which was offered to him during counselling because when he was offered such post he sought to accept the same conditionally and subject to a writ petition filed by him in this Court; such acceptance was against the spirit of Rule 10(A) (3) and therefore should have been outrightly rejected; consequently, as per Rule 10(A) (4) the petitioner, who was next in merit should have been offered the post in question and that in the facts of the present case the reliance of the State on Rule 10(A) (10) is misconceived as Rule 10(A) (10) would apply only when a candidate, during the counselling session, unconditionally accepts the offered post and then on the issuance of the appointment letter refuses or fails to join.
5.
Per contra, Mr.Ramandeep Singh Pandher, learned Sr.DAG Punjab who appeared for the State relied on Rule 10(A) (10) of the 2019 Rules to justify denial of appointment to the petitioner as according to him, Navanjot Singh who was higher in merit than the petitioner, at the time of counselling, had accepted the offered post of BDPO on the basis whereof
appointment letter dated 07.01.2022 was also issued to him and when in response to such letter Navanjot Singh failed to join then Rule 10(A) (10) came into play and accordingly, the State rightly decided to carry forward the post in question to the next recruitment process. ? # 0310&1 0$'1 $'01
)'$=
%
.
!
!
!
!" # $% "
& "
"
& ' ( % "
#" & !
!
! &
" # "
" & ) 7
. 6!
9
#
$'01
)'$=
$'01031
! !
!
!
$'031
#
( 2
6 9.
! $'010&1
9 #
9
.
!
#
!
!
= / .
.
6
$'010$'1 !
. .
9 #
$' %
#
#.#
!. #
#
!
!
# !
!
!
#
#
2 # .
.
@
! !
!
#
. $$ 2
#
!
.
$) <
. + / # !
!
3 !
$ !
8 !
.
!
)
+ /
.
# !
#. !
4
5 #
#. ! #
* %
A
! #. !
%*# !
% +,-&
. , -& " + ! -& "
% /-& % "
'
! !% .0 1 +! 2
.1+2 3" % , 4 + ,4+ * 5$ " # '
" ! 0 6 +, -&
. + # 7 (88 %
! ! / * %
! +, -&
. !
9 % !
.1+2
#
" ,4+* 5$ ! ! +, -&
. !
) $3 # A 9
#. !
+ /
#
!
$'01031 )'$=
#
#
B
#
%
+.
.
A
! $'010&1 )'$=
!
#
9 $& 2
#
C
.
#.
9
$'010$'1 )'$= $: .
+ / #
$&
'($))')'/ #
9
. #
. 6 %
#
'&
, $?
#%%. 02 6 ;$ ,!1% ++ #2,0/(
!%'9 ,'$
0 ,!1%
, @ E @
# E @