Case: Ajit Singh and Others Etc Vs. State of Punjab and Another

The Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (Act for short) was enacted to make provision for the improvement and expansion of towns in Punjab. The act envisages the creation and constitution of Trusts and the Trust so created will have a corporate personality with perpetual succession and a common seal. The duties and functions of the Trust inter alia include preparing of schemes under the Act for various purposes. Section 17 conferred power on the State Government to constitute certain services in the manner therein prescribed. One such service contemplated by the sect ion was Punjab Service of Trust-Executive officers. Sub-section (2) of section 17 conferred power on the State Government to make rules for regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of members of the Trust Services constituted by the State Government. Armed with this power, the State Government constituted Punjab Service of Trust Executive officers. In exercise of the power conferred by sec. 73 read with sec. 17 (2) of the Act, the State Government framed rules styled as Punjab Trust Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978 (Rules for short). Rule 5 (2) (i) inter alia provided that fifty percent of the vacancies in the cadre of Executive officers shall be filled by direct recruitment and for this purpose rule 5(4) envisaged the setting up of a Selection Committee called Punjab Trust Services Selectionthe year 1978, Directorate of Local Government, Punjab issued advertisement No. 1078 inviting applications for the posts in Class I, II and III of Trust Executive officers Pursuant to this advertisement, large number of persons applied for various posts. The Punjab Trust Services Selection Committee interviewed various candidates and ultimately recommended eleven persons for the post of Trust Executive officers. Ajit Singh and Rajinder Singh were recommended for Class I post; S. Sarup Singh and R.L. Bhagat were recommended for Class II Post of Trust Executive officers and the remaining 7 petitioners in this group of petitions were recommended for Class III Post of Trust Executive officers. These recommendations were accepted and appointment orders were issued by Punjab Government on May 28, 1979 and it is not in dispute that all the appointees joined the respective posts. Each one of the appointees was issued an order of appointment to which terms and conditions of appointment were annexed. One such condition worth- noticing reads asAll the appointees shall remain on probation for a period of one year under rule 10 (l) of the Rules. The regular appointments shall be subject to the satisfactory completion of the probation period by such appointee after the expiry of one year from the date of hiseach appointee completed one year of service, an increment was released in his favour. Suddenly in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 9 of the 1978 Rules, Director of Local Government, Punjab dispensed with the service of each of the 11 Trust Executive officers, who were appointed on May 28, 1979. These orders are impugned in these petitions.As the language of the order was the subject matter of some discussion, the one in respect of petitioner No. 3 R.L. Bhagat may be extracted. It reads asGovernmentLocal Government DepartmentO R D E RIn exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 9 of the Punjab Trust Services Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf the Governor of Punjab is pleased to dispense with immediate effect the services of Shri Rat tan Lal Bhagat who was appointed to the Punjab Trust Service of Executive officer Class Il vide office order No. DLG (TSC)-79/126 dated 28th May, 1979. He will be paid one months salary in lieu of the months noticeSd/- R.D. Joshi,Director, Local Government, Punjab.Endst. No. DLG (TSC) 80/8648/51 Dated Chandigarh the 25th Sept.of this order styled as order dispensing with the service of each of the petitioner is questioned in this group of petitions on The ground that the action is thoroughly arbitrary actuated by extraneous considerations and violative of equality of opportunity in the matter of employment. It is also challenged on the additional ground that after the completion of the period of probation it was not open to the State Government to terminate the service of the petitioners, in the manner in which it is done. One more ground of attack was that the action was malafide in that the petitioners were appointed when a political party of other hue and colour was in power and on a change of Government, the petitioners were victimised. In support of the last contention it was urged that the power to dissolve trust conferred by section 103 was used to get rid of the petitioners which can be demonstrably established by the facts that after dispensing with the service of petitioners, the trusts have been reconstituted without calling back petitioners to their posts.A return was filed on behalf of the respondents-the State of Punjab and Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Local Government Department, Punjab by Prithipal Singh Sodhi. Apart from the usual preliminary objection that t he petition involves disputed and tangled questions of facts which cannot be resolved under a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, it was contended that the Government had dissolved all the 21 Improvement Trusts in the State of Punjab by its order dated August 11, 1980 and since the Trusts were dissolved, services of Executive officers were no longer required because their continuance would inflict an unnecessary burden on the State Exchequer and therefore, the State Government decided to dispense with the services of those Executive officers appointed by direct recruitment who had not completed the probationary period of 2 years under Rule 9 (1) of 1978 Rules. It was contended that all the petitioners were appointed through direct recruitment as Executive officers in the Punjab Trust Services on May 28, 1979 and according to the respondents the period of probation was two years which would expire on May 27, 1981. It was said that the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 9 (2) could dispense with a service of a probationer, if the work and conduct of a person to a service during the period of his probation is in the opinion of the appointing authority not satisfactory. Armed with this power, it was contended that the services of the petitioners were terminated which would mean that the work and conduct of each of the petitioner who was appointed by direct recruitment was not satisfactory. Explaining why one month pay in lieu of notice was paid, it was contended that payment was ex majorie cautela and it can confer no right on the petitioners. Referring to clause (c) in the annexure to the appointment order of the petitioners which prescribed a probation period of one year, it was submitted that that was a typographical-cum-clerical error because Rule 9 (2) which prescribes period of probation in terms specifies the probation period of two years in respect of direct recruits. It was lastly contended that as the Trusts were dissolved, the services of the petitioners as Executive officers had become surplus and therefore, had to the dispensed with as a compelling necessity.leadings have been set out in some detail to highlight a very narrow controversy which requires to be resolved in this case. There is no dispute that petitioners were appointed to Class I, II and III post of Trust Executive Service after they were recommended by the statutory body called Punjab Trust Service Selection Committee. That each petitioner in response to the appointment order dated May 28, 1979 joined the service is again undisputed. Terms and conditions were set out as an annexure to the appointment order of each of the petitioners and clause (c) in the annexure clearly specifies the probation period to be of one year as prescribed under Rule 10 (1) of 1978 Rules. Now if each of the petitioners was appointed as a probationer and the period of probation which he was informed by the annexure to the appointment order was of one year, indisputably on May 27, 1980 each one completed the period of probation. However, the contention of the respondents is that the recital in clause (c) of the annexure to the appointment order specifying the probation period of one year in respect of each petitioner is a typographical-cum-clerical error in view of the provision contained in Rule 9 (1) of 1978 Rules.

Court's reasoning:
We have reached the conclusion that the action was thoroughly arbitrary and if it is arbitrary, it smacks of discrimination and a discriminatory treatment in the matter of public employment cannot bethese petitions must succeed. The order dated September 25, 1980 dispensing with the service of each of the petitioner is quashed and set aside and it is declared that all the petitioners continue to be in service and they should be forthwith reinstated. By an interim order made by this Court, respondents were directed to pay half the salary to the petitioners from the date of dispensing with their services till further orders. Now that it is declared that the petitioners continue to be in service, each of the petitioners shall be paid his full salary with effect from the date of his judgment, but, for the period between the date of dispensing with the service and till today, each of the petitioners should be paid only half the salary.