Satvir Singh v. State Of Punjab & ANR
[
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: Satvir Singh #Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and anr.
#Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: . Mr. Jatin Salwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajaib Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..
Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for. Replication to written statement filed by respondent No.2, is taken on record.
The instant writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of directions to the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner against the post of Junior Draftsman (Non.Provincial) reserved for Sports Quota, in terms of the resolution passed by General House of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. The petitioner is a sportsman. He represented the State of Punjab at National Level in the event of cycling. He has won four
[
medals in various competitions. Gradation certificate was issued to him by the Director Sports Punjab vide Sr. No. 167.Sports 20934 dated 29.05.2003. He had got himself registered with the Employment Exchange, Ludhiana vide registration No.3953 on 31.08.2006.
With an intention to fill up three posts of Junior Draftsman including one under the sports category, respondent No.2 requisitioned the names of eligible candidates from Employment Exchange, Ludhiana. The District Employment Officer vide his communication dated 13.3.2007 forwarded the name of the petitioner and further stated that the petitioner was the only eligible candidate in the sports quota registered with them. Vide another communication dated 24.08.2007, respondent No.2 again inquired from the employment exchange that if any other eligible candidate in the sports category registered with them is available, his name should also be sent. In response thereto, the employment exchange Ludhiana intimated respondent No.2 through letter dated 26.1.2007 that they had circulated the demand in all the employment exchanges of the State of Punjab but they had been informed that the petitioner was the only eligible candidate registered with them in sports category.
It has been further averred that meanwhile, the State Government in response to query of respondent No.2 conveyed that as the post of Junior Draftsman belongs to a non.provincial cadre, therefore, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, respondent No.2 is
[
competent to take a decision regarding appointment of a Junior Draftsman in the sports quota at its own level after due approval of General House. Thereafter, an official agenda item No.944 for formal approval of the General House was put up before General House of respondent No.2 in its meeting held on 6.7.2009. The said agenda item was approved and vide communication dated 14.7.2009 (Annexure P.1) copy of the proceedings including the other resolutions passed was forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Local Government Department Punjab for approval in terms of the requirement of Section 69(1) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Though, the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana was intimated through letter dated 18.09.2009 from the Local Government Department that various resolutions sent vide letter dated 14.07.2009, which included resolution No.944 regarding approval of the appointment of the petitioner had been seen, but thereafter, inexplicably another communication dated 19.11.2009 was addressed to respondent No.2 stating that resolution No.944 is illegal.
Aggrieved of the non.action of the respondents in offering appointment to the petitioner pursuant to the resolution No.944, he filed CWP No.1201 of 2010 seeking directions to the respondents to issue him appointment letter as Junior Draftsman against the vacant post in the Sports quota.
During pendency of that writ petition, communication dated 28.11.2011(Annexure P/3) was addressed by the Punjab Govt., Local Government Department to respondent No.2
[
stating that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ludhina and the Mayor had accorded approval to resolution No.944 dated 6.7.2009, but the house had disapproved this resolution. On considering the request of the petitioner, it had been decided that appropriate action be initiated for re.considering /passing of Resolution No.944 dated 6.7.2009. This decision was taken on the condition that the petitioner should be bound to withdraw that writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner withdrew that writ petition. After withdrawal of that writ petition, another letter dated 23.12.2011 was addressed by the Local Government to respondent No.2 calling them to submit action report with regard to re. consideration/passing of resolution No.944 dated 6.7.2009. Respondent No.
2 once again sought clarification from the State Government regarding issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner in accordance with resolution No.944. In response thereto, Local Govt. Department vide communication dated 1.3.2012 (Annexure P.5), again affirmed that the post of Junior Draftsman belongs to non.provincial cadre and the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana is competent to take decision at its own level and that it should be considered in the General House. Therefore, after due permission for presentation of the case in the House on 06.12.2012, the same was considered vide Resolution No.18 and accepted as per Rules on 12.03.2013 (Annexure P.6). After considerable delay, resolution No.18 dated 12.03.
[
Department seeking permission/direction for appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner meanwhile kept on representing to the respondents that he be given appointment and when he received no favourable response from the respondents, he filed the present writ petition.
In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, reliance has been placed on instructions contained in letter dated 1.1.1997 issued by the Personal & Administrative Reform Department of Government of Punjab, as per which no post can be filled without issuance of public advertisement. It has been averred that although names of suitable candidates for the post of Junior Draftsman were sought from the office of Employment Exchange, however, no advertisement in this regard was published in the newspapers for the information of general public. Hence, the directions contained in the Government guidelines dated 1.1.1997 were not complied with. The petitioner has filed replication alongwith which he has annexed communication dated 20.07.2007 (Annexure P.
10) addressed by the Local Government Department to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. In this letter, it has been stated that there is a ban on the direct recruitment. So far as appointment against the post of Draftsman in sports quota is concerned, all appointments of Junior Draftsman that have been made in the Municipal Corporation Ludhiana, have been made through the office of Employment Exchange.
[
amongst the eligible candidates through the Employment Exchange. The petitioner has also annexed information obtained by him through RTI wherein it has been confirmed that the appointments of all Juniors Draftsman working in Municipal Corporation Ludhiana have been made by calling their names from the District Employment Exchange.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange Ludhiana in the year 2007 in response to the requisition sent by the Municipal Corporation and he was the only eligible candidate in the sports category. Respondent No.2 subsequently again asked for the names from the Employment Exchange whereafter it was intimated that after getting information from all the Employment Exchanges in the State of Punjab, the petitioner was the only eligible candidate for the post in question in the sports category. Thereafter, the General House of Municipal Corporation passed resolution No.944 on 6.7.2009 approving his appointment.
This resolution along with other resolutions was forwarded to the Local Government Department. Inexplicably, a letter dated 19.11.2009 was sent by the Local Government department stating that resolution No.944 is illegal. The petitioner had to file CWP No.
[
and pass the resolution dated 6.7.2009 regarding appointment of the petitioner. Thereafter, after once again seeking clarification from the Government, and after complying with all the formalities the General House of Municipal Corporation Ludhiana again passed resolution No.18 dated 12.03.2013 regarding the appointment of the petitioner. Ld. Counsel has stated that there is no legal impediment in his appointment and the respondents are liable to be directed to appoint the petitioner.
To the contrary the Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 2 Municipal Corporation has relied upon the instructions dated 01.01.1997 of the Personal and Administrative Reforms Department of Government of Punjab that no post be filled without issue of public advertisement.
There is no denying the above stated legal proposition. At present, the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that every public appointment has to be preceded by a public advertisement in order to meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16. In
! "# $
%
#%
&
'
! "
# $ %"& ! '
(
) * $"
+ !,!-"
+ &!$ # ! %! +
[
+ . !
$ /
$ / $ $
!0 This was stressed and emphasized in another case
( )) ! *+ *
#%
'
!""#$%&'$%('&")*&'$%+#%,-%./0'1%#2'&'$%3
& 1
/ 1
/
!2 $
$
1!3 1
1
!4
/ $
-
1 1
/
&
! 5* 6
6 #
4 7 ! 6
!$"
# !% "
$4/ " !!
!2! !* 11 8 $1 !9
+
" - - " $ 2 ' ! 8 + $
:
; ) ! ! " "
$ 6 + ! 6$"
2
[&
! "
"
+!%!!+!
!< $
1
!3
/
$ ! 1
= &
!
"
= &
3
1
$
!
!:
1
!
!0 But in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not open to respondent No.2 to raise this objection at this stage. It has come on record that the appointment process was initiated by the respondent No.2 in 1997 after due approval of the Government and requisition was sent to Employment Exchange, Ludhiana, which sponsored the name of the petitioner as being the only eligible candidate in the sports category. Second time again, respondent No.2 asked for the names from the Employment Exchange and it was intimated that after getting information from all the Employment
[ Exchanges in the State of Punjab, the petitioner was the only eligible candidate for the post in question in the sports category. It was only thereafter that resolution dated 7.7.2009 for appointment of the petitioner was passed. When the letter dated 19.11.2009 was sent by the Local Government department stating that resolution No.944 is illegal, the petitioner filed CWP No.1201 of 2010 seeking directions for his appointment whereafter the Government again wrote to the Municipal Corporation to initiate action to reconsider and pass the resolution dated 6.7.2009 regarding appointment of the petitioner. Thereafter, after once again seeking clarification from the Government, and after complying with all the formalities, the General House Municipal Corporation Ludhiana again passed resolution No.18 dated 12.03.
2013 regarding the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner with his replication has annexed communication dated 20.07.2007 (Annexure P.10) addressed by the Local Government Department to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. In this letter, it has been stated that there is a ban on the direct recruitment. So far as appointment against the post of Draftsman in sports quota is concerned, all appointments of Junior Draftsman that have been made in the Municipal Corporation Ludhiana, have been made through the office of Employment Exchange. Therefore, the post of Junior Draftsman in the Sports Quota may also be filled up from amongst the eligible candidates through the Employment Exchange.
[ confirmed that the appointments of all Juniors Draftsmen working in Municipal Corporation Ludhiana have been made by calling their names from the District Employment Exchange. This makes it clear that the Government itself has not insisted on compliance with the instructions which have been referred to by the Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2 and all appointments to the post of Junior Draftsman in Municipal Corporation have been made by calling names from the Employment Exchange.
In this background, the approach of the respondents to deny appointment to the petitioner by relying on the Government instructions appears to be wholly unjust, harsh and inhuman, particularly, when the entire process has been initiated by respondent No.2 after due approval of the Government. Respondent No.2 has failed to understand the reality of the situation and the agony and uncertainty that the petitioner has been made to undergo. The petitioner is an accomplished sports.person having won medals at various levels. The offer of appointment has been kept dangling before the petitioner since 2009. The job has seemed so near and yet been so far. As the mirage whenever it seemed within grasp it has receded away. The petitioner cannot be permitted to be left in this situation. The petition deserves to succeed. It is not as if the petitioner is being sought to be appointed clandestinely in blatant violation of the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had in various cases refuted the argument that Employment Exchanges do not reach everywhere
[ by observing that the same would be the case with any method of advertising vacancies. Advertisement in the daily press also does not reach everyone desiring employment.
3"
,$ !
-% #.
4
#%
'
!
1
$
$ 4 4/
= &
!" %!% 1 8 $ &
1
&
$
$
= !#
1%
1
$
1 ' !#
1 4 4/ !3 3 $ 1 1
$
$
1
4 4/ 1
1 1-4 4/ 1 $
!#
/
1
4
4/
1 ! "
% 1 8
!
[ $ 1 1
! .
1 1
.! 3
$
!
!3
1 1 $
-
-$
!
=
! >$ $
4
4/
= &
! 4 4/ 1
1
!
$/ $
!3
$1 -
/
= &
! >
. #
& $
!
1
!0 In / 1 ! 2 . *)!
3) 3 %
[
the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the appointments made by resort only to employment exchanges by taking note of the fact situation therein, by observing as under:.
! /
/
!
-
?!
$
-
!
1
$1$
! 1 $ 1
$
1
1
! > $
$
1
/ @@A
!3 / $
!"
3 ! !#
1'
. $ $ / $ 1
= &
! 3 6 6
#
4 7 !6 !5"&& !
<$ &
/
! 2
4/ " !! !2! !* 11 8 &
3 !#
[
!3
"
1
/ 1
1
*$8 $ !& 1 1
/ ! &
!
!
/
$
1$
$ 1
& 1 !0 In / 4+
3 ! "
,$
#%
'
!4 &
BC?A?BDDA #
& 1
!3
1
&
! #
&
& 3 ! !# 1
.
$ / $ 1
= &
!#
&
& 6 6
#
4 7 !6 !1 &
/
!
" & 4/ " !$ + - ! !2! ! * 11 8
[ 1 # 1
$ 1 6 2 #
&
#
&
1
!
3* 11 8 ?( 2 & # 5"&&!BE?C< !#
$1 1
1 1 1
$ .
!3 -1 $
/ $ 1
1
/ !
$
"
!2
1
F
/ $ /
$
! 3
$
-
1 1
[
$ 1
$
1
!3 $
1 !
1
!0
& * 11 8 $ $
/
/ ! &
1
$ .
$
1 1
$ $ 1
1
! 11 -
!
1
1
1 $ $ 1
$
1
$
1
!
31 ! 9
+ " - -" 1
EDDD
?5G
2 - <$
1 -
?1
[ / $ 1
"
2 $ 1?( 2 &
1 /
1 !
1 * 11 8
1
1 ! 1?
( 2 & # $ 6 6 #
4 7 * 11 8 BD 51
$"&&!AA@< BD! /
/
! -
?
!
$
-
!
1
$ 1$
! 1 $ 1
$
1
1 ! >
$
$
1
/ @@A
! 3 / $
!0 $ & 1 $
$
? /
! 1
1 !2 * 11 8 ?( 2 &
1 1
[& !0 Relying on aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the fact situation detailed above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of Junior Draftsman (Non Provincial) at Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, subject to compliance of all necessary formalities viz. medical and character verification, etc. The needful be done within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
5-/6, , 9- ,7-":
dinesh "798