CWP No.374 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 374 of 2002 Date of Decision: 23 - 11 - 2010 Harmik Singh and another ....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Rajive Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vibhor Kalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Harmik Singh and Rajesh Kansal had applied for appointment as Sub Divisional Engineers (Civil) in pursuance of advertisement issued by the State of Punjab in February, 1999. The advertisement stated that a written screening test will be conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission on April 11, 1999 for recruiting 15 Sub Divisional Engineers (Civil) in the Department of P.W.D. (B&R), 5 Sub Divisional Officers in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats and 3 posts of Sub Divisional Engineers (Horticulture). Thus, for 23 posts of Sub Divisional Engineers in 3 departments of the State, a common advertisement, Annexure CWP No.374 of 2002 [2] P1 was issued. The qualification of these posts was the same, common test was held, common interview was conducted and a common merit list was prepared. The petitioners were placed at serial Nos.16 and 17 of the merit list prepared qua the General category. Since there were 15 posts for P.W.D. (B&R) and 6 posts for Rural Development and Panchayats departments, appointment letters by the Rural Development and Panchayats Department were issued prior in time i.e. in March, 2000. Since the petitioners were at serial No.16 and 17, they were appointed in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, even though they had given the first preference in the Department of P.W.D. (B&R). Appointment letters for 15 posts in the Department of P.W.D. (B&R) were issued in June/July, 2000. Two persons who were at serial No.3 and 14 in the order of merit did not come forward to join the P.W.D. (B&R) Department. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer that since two posts fell vacant in P.W.D. (B&R) Department, they being next in the merit list, ought to have been appointed in P.W.D. (B&R) Department, instead of Rural Development and Panchayats Department. In the present writ petition, a mandamus to this effect has been sought. The Department of P.W.D. (B&R) has taken a stand that a representation was received from the petitioners. Same was considered and rejected on the ground that petitioners are already working as Sub Divisional Engineers in Rural Development and Panchayats Department. They are getting the same pay scale and status, therefore, their claim is not tenable. Their claim that they should be appointed in P.W.D. (B&R) Department instead of Rural Development and Panchayats Department is not legally enforceable. CWP No.374 of 2002 [3] Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that there are more promotion avenues in the Department of P.W.D. (B&R), as its field of activities is very large and availability of the posts to which one can be promoted is more, than the Rural Development and Panchayats Department. On 19.8.2010, petitioner No.2 - Rajesh Kansal has filed the following affidavit:- 1. That the above mentioned writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent State of Punjab to shift the petitioners from the post of Sub Divisional Officer in the department of Rural Development and Panchayats to the post of Sub Divisional Engineers in the department of P.W.D. (B&R) Branch. 2. That the petitioners were recruited as Sub Divisional Officers in the department of Rural Development and Panchayats in pursuance to the advertisement Annexure P-1. Others were appointed as Sub Divisional Engineers in P.W.D. (B&R) Branch in pursuance to the advertisement Annexure P-1 in June/July, 2000. 3. That in case respondent State shifts the petitioners from the department of Rural Development and Panchayats to the department of P.W.D. (B&R Branch) with effect from the date persons similarly situate were appointed in the department of P.W.D. (B&R) in June/July, 2000 with all benefits, the petitioners shall not claim seniority over any person appointed by direct recruitment or promotion after the said batch of June/July, 2000. The petitioners may be placed in seniority below any person appointed till today. However, this is subject to grant of other service benefits including pay and allowances, continuity in service for all purposes including pension, A.C.P., experience etc.” Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, learned senior counsel appearing for the CWP No.374 of 2002 [4] petitioners has placed reliance on Rohtas Singh Kharub v. State of Haryana, 1989(6) SLR 45 to contend that this Court has caused interference and permitted persons who were in the waiting list to join the service, when 2 of the selected candidates had not come forward to join the service. He has further placed reliance on Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association v. The State of Gujarat & Ors., JT 1994(3) S.C. 559 to contend that once two persons who were selected to P.W.D. (B&R) Department had not joined, it was incumbent upon the respondents to issue letters of appointment to the petitioners qua the posts of Sub Divisional Engineers in the Department of P.W.D. (B&R). Counsel for the State has submitted that since petitioners are getting the same pay scale and status, they have no legal right to say that they be posted in a particular department. Furthermore, appointment letters were issued in 2000. A period of ten years is going to elapse and at this juncture, department where petitioners are working cannot be denied the experience, which petitioners have acquired at the cost of the department. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the advertisement was issued in the year 1999. Appointment letters were issued in March, 2000. The petitioners joined the Rural Development and Panchayats Department in April, 2000. They have been working in that department for the last 10 years. They have gained experience and now are well acquainted with day to day functioning of the Rural Development and Panchayats Department. In case, at this stage, they are uprooted from their parent department i.e. Rural Development and Panchayats Department to P.W.D. (B&R) Department, it will disturb the functioning of the Rural Development and Panchayats Department, as the CWP No.374 of 2002 [5] Department will have to go for further selection and will have to provide inputs to the new selectees to gain experience. Once the status and pay scale attached to the post in both the departments is the same, the argument that in the other departments, there are more promotional avenues, cannot be given due credence, even though one of the petitioners has filed an affidavit that they will not claim seniority over the persons appointed by direct recruitment or promotion after June/July, 2000. They have stated in the affidavit that they be placed in seniority below any person appointed till today. This Court is of the view that no right vests in the petitioners to make the prayer which has been made before this Court. This Court cannot cause interference in the administrative functioning. It is for the Government to decide whether in terms of the affidavit dated 19.8.2010 which has been reproduced above, the petitioners can be transferred/shifted from one department to the other. Reliance can be placed upon the following observations made in The Registrar General of High Court, Calcutta v. Smt.Chitra Biswas, 2005(4) SLR 740:- “30. The Courts or Tribunal are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts and Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officer to proper place. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background or foundation. When the order of CWP No.374 of 2002 [6] transfer is issued on administrative grounds the Court cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place. 31 to 34. xx xx xx xx 35. It is true that formation of opinion as to the existence of exigencies of service is a pre-requisite for the exercise of the power. But the formation of such opinion is a matter, in view of the peculiar nature of the function, primarily left to the subjective satisfaction of the Government. Indeed it is as it ought to be. The responsibility for good administration is that of the Government. The maintenance of an efficient, honest and expedient administrative service is a must for the due discharge of that responsibility. Therefore, the administration alone is best suited to judge as to the existence of exigencies. The term `exigency' being understood in its widest and pragmatic sense as a rule, the Court would not judge the propriety or sufficiency of such opinion by objective standards, save where the subjective process of forming it is vitiated by mala fides, dishonesty, extraneous purpose, or transgression of the limits circumscribed by the legislation (K.B. Shukla, AIR 1979 SC 1136).” Therefore, the claim made in the writ petition by the petitioners can at best be redressed in administrative domain. No judicial interference is warranted especially when the matter is purely in the realm of administrative functioning. Thus, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Secretary, Punjab to consider the claim of the petitioners within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in terms of the affidavit dated 19.8.2010 after eliciting views from the Secretaries, Public Works Department (B&R) and Rural Development and Panchayats Department and in case thereafter the Chief CWP No.374 of 2002 [7] Secretary, Punjab comes to a conclusion that it will not affect the interest of the State, request of the petitioners may be accepted. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 23, 2010. JUDGE RC