IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 5260 of 1988 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 21, 2009 SHER SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. ... AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Sher Singh, working in the capacity of Patwari, has filed this Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Civil Writ Petition No. 5260 of 1988 2 selection of respondents No.2 to 4, who have been appointed as Kanungos. Further prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to hold fresh examination for filling up the posts of Kanungo, after advertising the same. It has been argued that the petitioner has been working as Patwari in Sangrur District since 26.1.1982. The channel of promotion from the post of Patwari is to that of Kanungo. Appointment as Kanungo is governed under the Punjab Kanungo Service (State Service Class III) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules'). It has further been pointed out that under Rule 8 of the Rules, no person can be appointed to the service by direct recruitment unless he has passed the Higher Secondary examination of a recognised University or Institution or its equivalent, with Punjabi language up to Matriculation standard. The other requirement is that such person has qualified the departmental examination prescribed in Appendix 'C' of the Rules. It has been contended that the private respondents do not fall within the scope of provisions of the Rules and, therefore, could not have been appointed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the petition is clearly misdirected. As per Rule 9 of the Rules, 75% posts of Kanungo are to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst Patwari Moharrir and Patwaris of the District on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and the remaining 25% posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment. It has been pointed out from the written statement that the Civil Writ Petition No. 5260 of 1988 3 petitioner is working as a Patwari and not as a Kanungo. The Rules are not applicable to the petitioner. The private respondents were appointed on compassionate grounds in view of the instructions (Annexure R-1) issued by the State of Punjab on 24.4.1986. In view of totality of such circumstances, the petitioner has no right to claim any relief against the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the issue. Rule 9 of the Rules provides as under:- “9. (1) Appointment to the posts in the Service shall be made - (i) xx xx xx xx xx (ii) in the case of Kanungos - (a) Seventy-five per cent by promotion from amongst Patwari Moharrir and Patwaris of the district; and (b) twenty-five per cent by direct recruitment; (iii)xx xx xx xx xx.” A perusal of the above reproduced rule makes it evident that 75% of the Kanungos are to be appointed by way of promotion from amongst Patwari Moharrir and Patwaris of the district and 25% are to be appointed by direct recruitment. Instructions (Annexure R-1) provide for employment in the State Service/for rehabilitation of disabled Ex-servicemen and widows/dependents of the deceased Government employees and defence Civil Writ Petition No. 5260 of 1988 4 services personnel killed or disabled severely in action. Annexure R-1 further provides for priority to categories which is to be followed for appointment to the State Service of Class III and IV posts. Category-1 defines member of the family of a person killed as a result of terrorist action in the State. Category-4 provides for employment to a member of the family of the deceased Government employee or a Government employee who is retired from service on medical grounds. It has been pointed out that respondents No.3 and 4 were appointed as Kanungos on priority on account of death of their fathers, who had been killed by extremists, while in service. Their case, therefore, falls under Category-1. In the case of respondent No.2, his father had died while in service and, therefore, his case fell under Category-4 of the instructions. In view of the fact that the private respondents have been appointed as Kanungos on compassionate grounds, by direct appointment, I find no ground to interfere at the instance of the petitioner, who is still working as a Patwari. I find that 25% posts of the cadre strength are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment against which the private respondents have been appointed. The petitioner, if at all, can claim appointment against the promotion quota posts i.e. 75% posts. In these circumstances, the appointment of the private respondents cannot possibly offend the right of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw the attention of the Court towards any illegality in appointment of the private respondents, which is under the provisions of the Scheme adopted by official respondents for appointment on Civil Writ Petition No. 5260 of 1988 5 compassionate grounds. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. July 21, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?