IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 82 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 24, 2009 MAJ. SUDHNEET SINGH WALIA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 i.e. Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment from amongst ex- servicemen against the post of Excise and Taxation Officer or, in the alternative, to the post of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Further prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Civil Writ Petition No. 82 of 1991 2 the action of the respondents by which one vacancy reserved for ex- servicemen in the cadre of Excise and Taxation Officers, is being filled up by a candidate other than the one belonging to the said category. In the petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner served in the Indian Army in Short Service Commission from September, 1974. The petitioner was granted Permanent Regular Commission in the Indian Army in the year 1979. However, subsequently, the petitioner was placed in lower medical category and had to seek premature retirement on medical grounds. The petitioner was prematurely retired in March, 1989. Punjab Public Service Commission issued an advertisement in the national Press for appointment to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) [for short 'PCS(EB)] and other allied services. The petitioner, being eligible for appointment to the PCS (EB), applied in the ex-servicemen category. 8 posts of PCS(EB), of which one post was reserved for ex-servicemen, 4 posts of Excise and Taxation Officers, of which one post was reserved for ex-servicemen and 5 posts of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, however, no post was reserved for ex- servicemen, were advertised. The preliminary competitive examination was held on 17.12.1989. The petitioner qualified and the position of the petitioner was within the prescribed limit for being considered for appointment. Having been short listed, the petitioner was allowed to take the main competitive examination on 11.9.1990. It has been pointed out that 26 candidates from the category of ex-servicemen were called upon to take the main competitive examination. The result was declared on 9.11.1990. The Civil Writ Petition No. 82 of 1991 3 petitioner qualified the examination as he obtained more than 40% marks in each subject and more than 45% marks in aggregate. The petitioner was called for the interview on 21.11.1990. The petitioner performed well. It has been asserted that the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No.2 in the merit list and, therefore, was confident of selection and appointment as Excise and Taxation Officer in PCS(EB). As per the final result, only one candidate appearing under Roll No.94 was declared selected from amongst the ex-servicemen. The Roll number of the petitioner did not find mention in the select list. The petitioner visited the office of Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission to make inquiries in regard to the status of the petitioner. The petitioner was informed that only one post of PCS (EB) was to be filled up from the category of ex-servicemen and 2 posts of Excise and Taxation Officer were not to be filled up from the said category. In para- 13 of the petition, it has been asserted that 4 vacancies were advertised for the post of Excise and Taxation Officer , which fell at roster points 25, 26, 27 and 28. The stand of the learned counsel for the respondent-State is that the number of vacancies given in the Information Sheet and Advertisement (Annexure P-2) was approximate. The requisition of posts was subject to variation and this fact was made known by way of an advertisement. In response to para-5 of the writ petition, the figures have been given in so much as for PCS(EB) and for allied post (Excise and Taxation Officer), one post each was reserved for ex-servicemen category. Civil Writ Petition No. 82 of 1991 4 In para-7 of the reply on behalf of respondent No.2, it has been clarified that 17 vacancies in PCS(EB) and allied services were advertised. Before commencement of the written examination (Main) and interview, the department of Excise and Taxation had informed the Public Service Commission that on appointment of two candidates of the dependents of Class-I and II officers killed in terrorist violence under the Priority Employment Scheme, the roster points of the Roster Register maintained by them had been disturbed. Letter dated 6.9.1990 (appended as Annexure R-1 with the reply) had been received from the Excise and Taxation Department giving out the vacancy situation for ex-servicemen category as 'nil'. Under the circumstances, only one post was to be filled up from out of ex-servicemen category in PCS (EB). In para-9 of the reply, it has further been stated that the petitioner had applied to appear in the competitive examination of PCS (EB) and allied service. At the time of advertisement, there were 2 vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen. The petitioner appeared in the written test and being an ex-servicemen was exempted from optional papers. Before the commencement of the written examination, the Government had withdrawn one vacancy in the allied service, as detailed above. The petitioner was considered against one vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen in PCS (EB). One Shri Jaipal Singh was higher in merit and, therefore, his name was recommended. Replication has not been filed to controvert the facts as given out in the written statement. Having considered the issue, a collective reading of facts Civil Writ Petition No. 82 of 1991 5 indicates that initially two posts had been advertised. It was made known to all that the number of posts advertised was approximate. By way of subsequent communication, it was again made known that only one post was required to be filled up out of ex-servicemen category. Admittedly, the petitioner was considered. Another person, however, was higher in merit and has been selected. These facts being uncontroverted, I do not find any reason to judicially review the administrative action of the respondents. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. October 24, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?