IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 2134 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.9.2009. Bhagwant Pal Singh Virk and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate, Mr. T.P.S.Chawla, Advocate, Mr.D.S.Brar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate and Mr.Mr.Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for petitioners. Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr.Rajive Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr.H.S.Sethi and Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocates for private respondents. Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. advocate assisted by Mr.Yashdeep Singh, Advocate for private respondents. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 18836, 19505 of 2001, 382 and 16011 of 2002 as all the four writ petitions involve common question of validity of selection of 62 private respondents to the posts of Executive Officers in the Department of Local Bodies, in Municipal Councils and Improvement Trust. 2. Vide advertisement dated 30.3.1998, 18 posts of Executive Officers in Municipal Council and Improvement Trust were advertised. The qualification laid down was degree in Law with requisite experience. The number of posts were increased to 34 by corrigendum dated 11.7.1998. The recruitment was to be made in accordance with The Punjab Municipal C.W.P.No. 2134 of 2002 [2] Services (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975. Under the said rules, the selection is to be made by a Selection Committee consisting of three officers of the Government and two non-officials who have sufficient experience in functioning of urban local bodies. At least one member was required to be from a Scheduled Caste. 3. The Selection Committee was accordingly constituted who conducted written test and interviews. Result of selection was declared on 16.4.1999. Against 38 posts notified in the advertisement, 50 persons were selected and appointed. The appointment was challenged by unsuccessful candidates by filing 41 writ petitions which were disposed of by judgment dated 14.12.2000 in C.W.P.No.9196 of 1999 and connected matters. It was, inter alia, held that no member of the Selection Committee belonged to the Scheduled Caste. Learned counsel for the State made a statement that Selection Committee will be reconstituted to conduct interviews of candidates who had passed written examination. It was further stated that following steps will be taken: “(i) New Selection Committee would be constituted in accordance with the recruitment rules for the purpose of interviewing the candidates, who have passed the written test. These would consist of persons others, who were the Chairman and members of previous Selection Committees. C.W.P.No. 2134 of 2002 [3] (ii)A uniform criteria for selection would be framed and comparative merit of the candidates would be determined strictly in accordance with the new criteria. (iii)Fresh dates of interview will be fixed and notified in two newspapers (one English and one Vernacular) having wide circulation. (iv)Each of the candidates would be separately intimated about the dates of interview for the posts for which he may have applied and passed the written test. (v) That marks awarded to the candidates in the written test will be immediately put in a sealed envelop. Their answer script would also be separately sealed. These envelopes will be opened after finalization of the interview and the marks secured by the candidates in the written test. As indicated in the original answer script would be added to the marks awarded at the interview. (vi)The result of the fresh selection would be notified by giving the details of marks secured by the candidate in the written C.W.P.No. 2134 of 2002 [4] test as well as the interview. (vii)The policy of reservation framed by the State Government would be strictly adhered to keeping in view the pronouncement of the Supreme Court and High Court and more meritorious candidates of reserved category would be appointed as per their overall merit.” In view of the above, the writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions: “ i)Fresh selection should be made by the official respondents in accordance with the method suggested by the learned Advocate General. The same shall be completed as for as possible within four months but latest within six months. ii)The experience gained by the non- official respondents by virtue of their appointments made in pursuance of the impugned selection shall not be taken into consideration at the time of fresh selection. iii)Till the finalization of the fresh selection in the manner indicated above, the non- C.W.P.No. 2134 of 2002 [5] official respondents shall be allowed to continue on their respective posts. If they are selected in the fresh selection, then they shall be deemed to have been continued in service without any break. However, such of them, who are not selected in the fresh selection shall not be entitled to continue in service and the newly selected candidates shall be given appointments within 15 days of declaration of the result. The inter se seniority of the candidates appointed in pursuance of the selection made hereinafter shall be determined according to the merit assigned by the Selection Committees." 4. Thereafter, almost all the 50 persons who were earlier appointed were given appointment on 26.10.2001. In addition, 12 more persons were given appointment on 7th November, 2001. 5. The present set of writ petitions was filed in January 2002 inter-alia, on the ground that appointments were in excess of the posts advertised and even in excess of number of selected candidates. It has also been stated that under the rules, 50% appointments were required to be made by promotion. Irregularities in making selection were also alleged. C.W.P.No. 2134 of 2002 [6] 6. The petitioners alleged that a report dated 7.6.2002 was submitted by the then Secretary, Local Bodies holding that selection was vitiated by irregularities in selection. The said Report has been produced and has been Marked “X” in CWP No. 2134 of 2002. 7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, stand of the petitioners has been contested. As regards appointment beyond advertised posts, it is stated that after advertisement more posts became available and a decision was taken to fill up the said posts. Initially, 50 persons were appointed but in the second round of selection, 12 more posts became available and, therefore, 62 persons were given appointments. The appointments were on merit. 8. Selected candidates also filed reply. They also submitted written submissions on the report of then Secretary, Local Bodies. It has been submitted that, in fact, there was no irregularity and all eligible candidates were duly considered on the basis of marks obtained in the written test and interview. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The main question to be considered is whether selection is vitiated by any irregularity and whether appointment of candidates beyond advertised posts was permissible. It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondents that there being no stay against their appointments, the private respondents have already worked for 9 to 10 years. 11. While appointments beyond advertised posts are not permissible as held in State of UP v. Rajkumar Sharma [2006] 3 SCC 330 C.W.P.No. 2134 of 2002 [7] and there may be some irregularities as pointed out in the report of then Secretary, Local Bodies, we are of the view that it will not be practical to disturb the appointments at this stage. The report is said to have been duly considered at the level of the Government and not accepted. The irregularities are not of such nature as may vitiate the entire selection. No candidate seeking appointment for promotion quota has come forward. The petitioners duly participated and were not selected. Even in earlier round, appointments beyond advertised posts were not disturbed. 12. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) September 22, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ........Yes/No