Gurmeet Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab

(c) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 dealt with the latter direct appointment for which 25 per cent of the posts were reserved. The appeals in question relate to the process of the direct recruitment under these Rules at the first instance, carried out in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 02.02.2008.

2. In terms of the aforesaid advertisement, applications were invited for selection of twenty one (21) candidates, with a further breakup of ten (10) from General category, six (6) from Scheduled Caste (‘SC’) category, two (2) from Backward Class category, one (1) from Ex-Serviceman (General) category, one (1) from B.C. (Ex- Serviceman) category and one (1) from Physically Challenged 2 category of Locomotor or Orthopedic Disability, under Rule 7(3)(c) of the said Rules. It may be noted that the advertisement also stated that ‘the number of posts will be subject to variation.’ Note 4 to the advertisement qua the Physically Challenged category also stated that “if no candidate is found suitable or medically fit under this category, the post shall be reverted to the General category candidate.”

3. The appellants before this Court are all candidates, who appeared for the examination. It may be noted that none had assailed the advertisement on any account prior to the declaration of the result. On declaration of the result of the written examination, viva-voce was held and there was variation in the merit position of the candidates in the combined marks as compared with just the written examination. The appellants all belong to the General category and their merit position was beyond the ten (10) candidates whose recruitment was envisaged under the advertisement. It may be noted that one of the SC candidates obtained marks to merit consideration without the benefit of reservation and consequently nine (9) of the General category candidates were recruited against the ten (10) posts. 3

4. There were five developments, which need to be taken note of, in view of the pleas advanced on behalf of the appellants. The first was the elevation of Justice Sabina as a Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 12.03.2008, and, thus, the submission of the appellants is that one more seat for General category became available post issuance of the advertisement and since the number of posts were subject to variation, this vacancy should be made available to the General category. The second is arising from a defect in the advertisement inasmuch as no reservation for ex-serviceman was envisaged, as Rule 3 of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ex-Servicemen Rules’) exempted the applicability of these Rules to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Service and the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. The High Court also took cognizance of this fact and, thus, the reservation being not in accordance with law, resolved appropriately in a meeting of the Judges held on 25.07.2008. The meeting noted that the vacancy, which was advertised as Ex-Serviceman (General) category should also go to the General category. Thus, a second seat as per the appellants became available for the General category. The third is the absorption of two 4 Presiding Officers of Fast Track courts against which vacancies for direct recruitment purportedly under Rule 7(2) of the said Rules even though the present recruitment exercise was under Rule 7(3) of the said Rules. Fourthly, no candidate was available in the physically challenged category, but instead of carrying it to the General category as per Note 4 of the advertisement, the vacancy was carried forward. Finally, the advertisement was issued on the basis of a total cadre strength of 107 posts, while actually the total cadre strength on the date of advertisement was 111, i.e., there were four more posts, which could have been filled in and the General category would have got two more seats and two more candidates could have been absorbed in the General category.

5. The endeavor of the appellants by filing writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, however, was not successful and in terms of the common judgment dated 19.08.2013 all the writ petitions were dismissed. In the course of the last decade since the recruitment process took place in the year 2008, similar recruitment of advocates was carried out five times through different notifications. Three of the candidates before this Court took their chances in different 5 examinations. The details of these are disclosed as per Annexure A to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2/the High Court, which is reproduced hereinunder:

14. We are, thus, not inclined on this aspect to interfere with the recruitment process.

D. Non-availability of candidate with disability:

Conclusion:

May 15, 2018.