CWP No.2102 of 1987 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No.2102 of 1987 Date of Decision: 22 - 12 - 2008 Smt.Rajindra Devi and others ....Petitioners v. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing ....Respondents Board, Chandigarh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.S.C.Pathela, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 7. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) The present writ petition was filed by four persons, namely, Smt.Rajindra Devi, Santokh Singh (since deceased now represented by his legal representatives), Jaswant Kaur and Natha Ram. All the four petitioners are working as Clerks in Market Committee, Tapa, District Sangrur. The present petition was filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned orders dated 15.4.1986, 12.6.1986 and 3.7.1986 (Annexures P/2-D to P/2-G) whereby respondents No.3,4,5 and 6 were appointed as Auction Recorder on ad hoc basis. Respondent No.7 is CWP No.2102 of 1987 [2] said to have resigned, therefore, his appointment letter has not been annexed. Grievance of the petitioners is that respondents No.3 to 6 along with respondent No.7 could not be appointed as Auction Recorder on ad hoc basis as their appointments first on daily wages, subsequently on ad hoc basis and thereafter on regular basis are in violation of the instructions dated 11.11.1983, Annexure P-3. It has been averred in the writ petition that petitioner No.1 was appointed as Clerk on 11.5.1977 and was confirmed on same date, Santokh Singh was appointed as Care Taker on 30.6.1978 and was confirmed as Clerk on 20.9.1982, Jaswant Kaur was appointed as ad hoc Clerk on 3.12.1982 and was confirmed as Clerk on 6.3.1983, whereas Nathu Ram was appointed as a Care Taker on 6.11.1982 and was confirmed as Care Taker on 4.2.1983. It was further pleaded that minimum qualification for the post of Clerk/Care-taker is Matriculation and the pay scale of Clerk/Care-taker is Rs.400-600/-. In the Market Committee there is another post of Auction Recorder which is in the scale of Rs.400-850/-. It has been stated that respondent No.3 - Jaswant Singh was appointed on daily wage basis on 15.4.1986, on ad hoc basis on 19.12.1986 and his services were regularised on 13.5.1987. Surinder Pal – respondent No.4 was appointed on daily wage basis, ad hoc basis and regularised on same date as respondent No.3 – Jaswant Singh. Respondent No.5 – Beant Singh was appointed on daily wage basis on 12.6.1986, on ad hoc basis on 19.12.1986 and thereafter his services were regularised on 13.5.1987. It was further stated that respondent No.6 - Gurmail Singh was appointed on daily wage basis on 3.7.1986, on ad hoc basis on 19.12.1986 and on regular basis on 13.5.1987. CWP No.2102 of 1987 [3] It is not disputed that initial appointments of respondents No.3 to 7 were as Auction Recorder. Therefore, they were appointed on a post, on which the petitioners were to be promoted. It has been claimed in the writ petition that petitioners as Clerk had acquired more experience, therefore, they should have been appointed as Auction Recorder by way of promotion. It has been further averred that on 11.11.1983, the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board issued instructions Annexure P-3 whereby all posts of Auction Recorder were to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Clerk-cum- Care-Taker. It was stated that petitioners also filed a representation, Annexure P-4. Petitioners are also aggrieved against the resolution, Annexure P-5 dated 15.7.1985 which was issued during the pendency of the writ petition whereby services of respondents No.3 to 7 were made permanent. Notice of motion was issued. This Court in the case of `Sajjan Singh v. Market Committee, Khadur Sahib and others', Civil Writ Petition No.6028 of 1988, decided on 19.12.2008 has considered the various policy instructions issued by the respondent-Board and reproduction of instructions, policy circular germane to the controversy raised herein, as noticed in Sajjan Singh's case require to be reproduced as under:- “Notice of motion was issued. Written statement has been filed on behalf of Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board. It has been stated therein that before the petitioner could be promoted, resolution dated 11.11.1983 was superseded by another circular dated 16.4.1986 wherein it was stated non availability of suitable candidates out of Clerks, the CWP No.2102 of 1987 [4] posts of Auction Recorder may be filled by direct recruitment. Copy of this circular has been attached as Annexure R-1. Thereafter the instructions were modified by circular No.38 dated 16.2.1987 and it was decided that a Clerk should have three years experience before he is promoted as Auction Recorder. Thereafter, the Government issued another circular on 25.4.1988 and decided that 50% posts of Auction Recorder should be filled through direct recruitment and 50% through promotion. No averment has been made in the writ petition that earlier to appointment of respondents No.3 to 5 as direct recruits, any vacancy of Auction Recorder arose and if the same occurred, any junior to the petitioner has been appointed. Therefore, it is to be presumed that till 1986, petitioner was not rightly promoted and, therefore, he can have subsequently no quarrel with the Government that he be promoted as Auction Recorder, as direct recruits appointed as Clerk lack requisite experience and suitability. Petitioner also cannot assail the subsequent circular whereby it was stated that three years experience in the cadre of Clerks is necessary. Petitioner in the present case was appointed on 3.10.1983. Thereafter, three years experience he was to acquire on 3.10.1986. Prior to that the circular came on 16.4.1986 whereby direct recruits were appointed. Since respondents No.3 to 5 were direct recruits and were appointed in pursuance of selection, petitioner in no way can compete with them. Therefore, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.” CWP No.2102 of 1987 [5] In the present case, admittedly respondents No.4 to 6 were appointed on daily wage basis. Thereafter, they were appointed on ad hoc basis on 19.12.1986 and their services were subsequently regularised by Government policy dated 13.5.1987. The entry of respondents No.3 to 7 in Market Committee, Tapa was back door entry. Their names were not requisitioned from the Employment Exchange nor there was any advertisement issued. It is incumbent for a person to be appointed in public employment that a fair competition ought to have ensured. Equal opportunity should have been afforded to all eligibles to compete. As it was noticed in Sajjan Singh's case that resolution dated 11.11.1983 was superseded by another resolution of 16.4.1986 wherein it was stated that as suitable candidates were not there, therefore, the posts be filled up by direct recruitment. In the present case, respondents were appointed on daily wage basis. Even, the posts for the direct recruits were created later. Persons who were to be directly recruited, they were to be appointed after adopting due procedure for public appointments. When the respondents were appointed on daily wages, petitioners were eligible to be promoted as Auction Recorder on basis of instructions dated 11.11.1983. Petitioners who were appointed much earlier to the appointments of respondents, had become eligible for promotion. They had gained three years requisite experience. Therefore, the ratio of Sajjan Singh's case shall not apply. Petitioners being eligible were to be considered for appointment as Auction Recorder. In the written statement filed, three preliminary objections have been raised. It has been stated that respondents are from direct quota posts. They were regularised subsequently. Secondly, it has been stated that writ CWP No.2102 of 1987 [6] petition has been filed after 16 years and thirdly in the original writ filed, the challenge was to the regularisation of the services of the private respondents. Since the private respondents have rendered service for a long and are in service since 1986, after 22 years, I find no justification to quash their appointments. Petitioners in the present petition because of instructions dated 11.11.1983 had become eligible for the post of Auction Recorder and were to be promoted on that date and the respondent-Board was bound to promote them. The policy instructions dated 11.11.1983 had laid clear mandate that all clerks are to be promoted to the post of Auction Recorder. Therefore, petitioners be given deemed date of promotion from the date when the respondents were appointed as Auction Recorder. Their orders of notional promotion be passed. However, the petitioners shall not be entitled to financial benefits, as they have not worked on the promotional post. All other benefits of notional promotion be given to them. While giving the notional promotion, the respondents shall take into consideration the principle of `No work, no pay'. The writ petition stands disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) December 22, 2008. JUDGE RC