CWP No. 4723 of 2009. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 4723 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 17th August, 2011. Gurwinder Singh Petitioner through Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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] The petitioner seeks a direction for his appointment as Panchayat Secretary against 123 posts which are stated to be lying vacant. [2]. The afore-stated relief has been sought on the basis of selections made in the year 2001. [3]. The case has a chequered history. An advertisement for recruitment of 190 Panchayat Secretaries was issued in the year 1992. The written test was held in the year 1994 but no selection was made. Thereafter, 700 posts of Panchayat Secretaries were advertised on 18.09.1998. The petitioner applied and was declared successful and was amongst the selected candidates as per the result declared on 12.10.2001. The petitioner was given appointment and he served as such for more than a year. [4]. The aforementioned selection was challenged before this Court in CWP No. 5283 of 2002 [Veero Devi v State of Punjab & CWP No. 4723 of 2009. ::-2-:: Ors.] which was converted into a Public Interest Litigation. A vigilance inquiry into the selection process was directed to be held in which serious irregularities were detected and as a result thereto, the State Government annulled the selection and consequential appointments. The matter was thereafter handed-over to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation pursuant to the subsequent directions issued by this Court. [5]. Notwithstanding the criminal prosecution still pending against those who were responsible for the alleged illegal selection, the State Government issued an advertisement dated 06.11.2003 [Annexure P-4] whereby it decided to appoint Panchayat Secretaries on contract basis. The advertisement specifically stipulated that the candidates “should be experienced Panchayat Secretaries/Gram Sachiv who have put in service for a minimum period of one year in the Department”. The object was writ large to rehabilitate the Panchayat Secretaries like the petitioner whose services were earlier terminated vide orders dated 10.12.2002. The petitioner did not opt for appointment on contract basis. As noticed earlier, the petitioner was previously selected and appointed on regular basis and he was not interested in a contractual job. [6]. The State Government thereafter took a policy decision dated 09.01.2009 [Annexure P-5] re-instating 909 Panchayat Secretaries whose appointments were earlier cancelled vide order dated 10.12.2002. The aforesaid decision reads as under:- “Subject: Regarding reinstatement of 909 Panchayat Secretaries, whose selection has been cancelled vide order dated No. 18/79/2002-04, REDE 4/7884 dated 10.12.2002 of Chief Secretary. Attention is invited to endorsement No. 18/79/2002-ABS- CWP No. 4723 of 2009. ::-3-:: 5/10383 dated 31.12.2008 of Secretary, Punjab Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, on the subject cited above. The matter has been considered in the meeting of the Ministers Council on 1.1.2009 and the following decision has been taken:- “While considering letter dated 31 December, 2008 issued by the rural Development and Panchayat Department, the Council of Ministers felt that 787 Panchayat Secretaries are working on contract in the department with effect from 19.02.2004 from the last 5 years but they are being paid Rs.5000/- per month as service allowance. The Council of Ministers has felt that on humanitarian grounds, it is not correct. In case these Panchayat Secretaries continue getting Rs.5000/- then what so say of rearing their families, they will not be able to earn their livelihood. It felt that keeping in view the requisite qualifications of these Panchayat Secretaries, this will be discriminatory legally also. These Panchayat Secretaries are getting different salaries from the other Panchayat Secretaries whereas these Panchayat Secretaries are working as regular Panchayat Secretaries for the last 5 years. After considering all this, the Council of Ministers has taken a decision to regularise the services of 787 Panchayat Secretaries who are working on contract basis from today but this decision will be subject to the decision in the criminal CBI case and the writs pending in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court”. [7]. The petitioner was denied re-instatement/regularisation in terms of the above-reproduced decision as he was not working on contract basis. He represented but his claim has not found favour. [8]. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner was amongst 909 Panchayat Secretaries whose selection and appointments were cancelled vide orders dated 10.12.2002. The only plea taken by them is that the petitioner refused to join on contract basis when such an offer was made to him vide advertisement [Annexure P-4]. [9]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the objection raised by the respondents to deny re-instatement to the CWP No. 4723 of 2009. ::-4-:: petitioner is wholly unfair and arbitrary. The selection of the petitioner in the year 2001 and consequential appointment was on regular basis. The petitioner joined and served the Department for more than a year till his services along with others were terminated vide order dated 10.12.2002. The fact that the petitioner did not apply or sought appointment on contract basis pursuant to the advertisement [Annexure P-4] has no material bearing on the subsequent decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 01.01.2009 whereby they decided to re-instate 909 Panchayat Secretaries whose selection was earlier cancelled and services terminated on 10.12.2002. It is true that this decision also talks about 'regularising' the services of the Panchayat Secretaries working on contract basis, however, the genesis of this decision lies in the selection and appointments made in the year 2001. The real object is to re-instate those Panchayat Secretaries whose services were terminated in the year 2001. The petitioner is also amongst them. His juniors/lower in merit have been adjusted on regular basis. If the petitioner did not work on contract basis, that was to his own disadvantage. The denial of the benefit of the Government decision dated 09.01.2009 [Annexure P-5] to the petitioner can not stand the scrutiny of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. [10]. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as a Panchayat Secretary on the same terms and conditions as have been imposed on those who have been reinstated/taken back in service pursuant to the decision dated 09.01.2009 [Annexure P-5]. The petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to any back wages, CWP No. 4723 of 2009. ::-5-:: except for notional pay fixation. He, however, shall be entitled to restoration of his seniority as per the merit list. Let the needful be done within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. [11]. Disposed of. Dasti. August 17, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE