IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6076 of 2011 Date of Decision : April 05, 2011. Harvinder Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.6079 of 2011 Malwinder Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.6076 and 6079 of 2011 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these cases. 2] For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.6076 of 2011. 3] The petitioners seek quashing of the policy circular dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited in purported compliance of the directions issued by a Division Bench vide order dated 14.7.2009 in Civil Writ Petition No.1237 of 2009 (Paramjeet Singh versus State of Punjab and others) which was filed in C.W.P.No .6076 of 2011 & C.W.P.No .6079 of 2011 2 the public interest. 4] In order to appreciate the controversy, it may be mentioned here that the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board and its authorities started selecting and appointing the Meter Readers and Bill Distributors on contract basis without adopting any transparent, objective and non- discriminatory procedure for selection of the Mater Reader/Bill Distributors. Due to the alleged large scale corruption in the matter of engagement of Meter Readers/Bill Distributors on contract basis that the above stated P.I.L. was filed before this Court. A Division Bench after taking notice of the fact that the Board is spending substantial amount towards payments to Meter Readers and Bill Distributors engaged on contract basis and that the annual expenditure on these payments runs into around three crores and the affidavit also places on record an order Annexure R-3 by which the Government had directed the Punjab State Electricity Board not to make any further recruitment and to undertake a complete cadre review of its manpower for all the categories so that complete detailed justification could be arrived at for filling up of vacant posts or continuation thereof, further held as follows:- “.....In the ordinary course, we would have issued appropriate direction to the Board not to continue with the procedure of appointing Meter Readers and Bill Distributors but having regard to the fact that the State Government have themselves directed a review of the manpower requirement, we see no reason why the State Government should not undertake such a review and stipulate proper procedure and norms that are transparent C.W.P.No .6076 of 2011 & C.W.P.No .6079 of 2011 3 and objective in nature to ensure that the process for appointment of Meter Readers and Bill Distributors is not vitiated by extraneous and corrupt motives that are more often that not bred in such situations on account of the arbitrary powers enjoyed by those who are authorized to make such selections.....” 5] The Division Bench accordingly allowed the writ petition in part and issued the following directions:- “.....We accordingly allow this petition but only in part and to the extent that the State Government shall review the issue regarding the ban on engagement of manpower required by the Punjab State Electricity Board. In case it comes to the conclusion that the ban deserves to be continued, and contractual appointments allowed to be made, it shall prescribe proper procedures and norms for engagement of those ready and willing to work on contractual basis as Meter Readers and Bill Distributors. We further direct that the entire process of review and streamlining the procedure and prescription of norms for engagement of contractual employees shall be initiated and concluded expeditiously but not later than three months from today......” 6] In compliance to the directions reproduced above, the respondent-Power Corporation (successor-in-interest of the Electricity Board) has issued the impugned policy decision dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) which provides as follows:- “xx xx xx xx xx 1. The Meter Readers and Bill Distributors shall be engaged as per the minimum qualification intimated in C.W.P.No .6076 of 2011 & C.W.P.No .6079 of 2011 4 the policy. No benefit for higher qualification is to be given. 2. No medical fitness certificate will be applicable for such employees to be recruited on contract. 3. The Roster Register for this recruitment is not applicable for Contract employees. 4. Minimum age of the meter readers and bill distributors to be recruited on contract basis be 18 years. 5. As per the Punjab and Haryana High Court's orders this recruitment of Meter Readers and Bill Distributors on contract basis is meant to replace the earlier Meter Readers and Bill Distributors recruited on contract without following any procedure. Therefore, the earlier recruited Meter Readers and Bills Distributors shall be relieved on the joining of the new recruited Meter Readers and Bill Distributors. 6. The existing Meter Readers and Bill Distributors working on contract and also apply for the advertised posts, if they fulfill the qualification, but selection shall be on merit. 7. Wherever, the Spot Bill is being carried out through outsourced firm. The Meter Readers and Bill Distributors shall not be employed on contract basis for the same purpose. 8. All the vacant posts may not be required to be filled up but only essential posts are to be filled up as per the requirement of the Sub Division/Division....” 7] The petitioners are working as Bill Distributors/Meter Readers on contract basis and admittedly they were appointed through back door entry without issuing any advertisement and without C.W.P.No .6076 of 2011 & C.W.P.No .6079 of 2011 5 considering the claim of other eligible applicants. Their grievance appears to be two folds. Firstly, it is urged that the directions issued by the Division Bench in a PIL do not contemplate replacement of the contractually appointed Bill Distributors/Meter Readers by another set of contractual employees. Secondly, the directions issued by the Division Bench would regulate the vacancies arising in future and do not effect the existing appointments. 8] In my considered view, both the contentions are wholly misconceived and devoid of any merits. I say so for the reasons that once the Division Bench of this Court found as a matter of fact that large scale appointments have been made without following any transparent or non- discriminatory procedure, the subsequent directions to prescribe the proper procedure/ norms for engagement of the Meter Readers/Bill Distributors on contractual basis would essentially apply to all the posts whether already occupied or to be filled up in future. Since the petitioners are amongst the beneficiaries of discriminatory method of recruitment disproved by the PIL Bench, they cannot be allowed to reap the fruits of their illegal appointments. The plea that the employees appointed on contract basis cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employed persons, cannot be accepted for the obvious reason that the Division Bench had directed to lay down a proper procedure for engagement of Meter Readers/Bill Distributors even on contractual basis. The respondents cannot be compelled to fill up the posts on regular basis nor the petitioners can say that unless the posts are filled up on regular basis, C.W.P.No .6076 of 2011 & C.W.P.No .6079 of 2011 6 the back door entrants should be allowed to occupy the said posts. The policy circular dated 15.9.2010 is an attempt to meet the obligations flowing from Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution in the matter of public appointments. It also appears to be an attempt to improve the quality and efficiency of the incumbents on the posts of Meter Readers/Bill Distributors. The policy circular does not offend any provisions of law nor takes away any vested right. 9] The petitioners' plea that their cases need to be scrutinized on case to case basis to find out their suitability and merits, also cannot be accepted for the reason that the suitability or merit of a candidate has to be compared through a competitive process. No such procedure has ever been adopted when the petitioners were given appointments. 10] No case to interfere with the policy decision by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. 11] Dismissed. April 05, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE