Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 29.9.2011, Annexure P14, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Constable in District Patiala under the Freedom Fighters Category has been rejected. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the State of Punjab issued advertisement in the year 2010 for appointment of 1214 posts of Male Constables in the District Police Cadre, Punjab, Annexure P2. Likewise, an advertisement was also issued in the same very year for recruitment of 1533 Male Constables in the Armed Police Cadre, Annexure P3. In both the advertisements, the break-up of the posts District-wise had been furnished. Apart from providing reservation for other categories, there was one percent reservation for wards of Freedom Fighters i.e. son and grand-son of Freedom Fighter. The selection was to be made at the level of District Recruitment Board and the Selection process was to comprise of three phases i.e. Physical Measurement, Physical Efficiency Test and Interview. The merit of the candidates was to be drawn on the basis of the total marks obtained in the educational qualifications, height and interview.

The petitioner is a ward of a Freedom Fighter and had applied for the post of Constable under the Freedom Fighter category in response to both the advertisements for Patiala District i.e. for District Police Cadre and Armed Police Cadre. The District Recruitment Board for Patiala District entertained the application of the petitioner on account of his being eligible and he even cleared the physical test and, accordingly, was called for the interview on 19.6.2010. It is pleaded that the result as regards District Police Cadre, Male Constable (Patiala District) was published on 10.7.2010, Annexure P6. As per such public notice, the result of all the categories including General Category, SC, BC etc. pertaining to District Patiala was declared, but insofar as Freedom Fighters Category, the same was withheld. Likewise, the result of Armed Police Cadre, Male Constable of Patiala District, was published on 29.9.2010 at Annexure P7, but herein also, the result of Freedom Fighters Category was withheld.

At this point of time, the petitioner along with another candidate, namely, Daljit Singh approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 22588 of 2010 praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for appointing them as Constables under the Freedom Fighters Category in relation to Patiala District and raised a further prayer for restraining the respondents from appointing candidates from other Districts as Constables in Patiala District under the Freedom Fighters Category. Such writ petition came to be disposed of in the light of order dated 17.5.2011 with the directions to the respondent-Authorities to consider the case of the petitioners therein for appointment as Constables in District Patiala under the Freedom Fighters Category. Towards purported compliance of the directions issued by this Court while disposing of Civil Writ Petition No. 22588 of 2010, the impugned order dated 29.9.2011 at Annexure P14 has been passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala taking a stand that both the candidates, namely, Balbir Singh (present petitioner) and Daljit Singh had not been selected in the District Police Cadre as also Armed Police Cadre and, as such, they have no right to claim appointment to the post in question.

Upon notice of motion having been issued, a joint written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 who, otherwise, belongs to Sangrur District and has been appointed under the Freedom Fighters Category in Patiala District and whose appointment is also a subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition, has also filed a written statement, which was duly taken on record.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the pleadings on record, I am of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner merits acceptance.

The petitioner along with another candidate had earlier approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 22588 of 2010. The precise claim and prayer raised in the afore-noticed writ petition was to consider their claim for appointment as Constables under the Freedom Fighters Category, both under the District Police Cadre and Armed Police Cadre for Patiala District. Such claim was contested on behalf of the State by filing a written statement which has been placed on record as Annexure P12 along with the instant writ petition. The categoric stand taken on behalf of the State was that after the issuance of advertisements dated 28.2.2010 in which one percent reservation of wards of Freedom Fighters had been provided, memo dated 9.6.2010 had been issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab and, accordingly, such vacancies reserved for wards of Freedom Fighters in District Police Cadre and Armed Police Cadre had been taken out of the purview of the Recruitment Board. Accordingly, the final result of the wards of the Freedom Fighters even though prepared by the concerned Chairmen of the District Recruitment Boards, yet the result of all such candidates of such category was consolidated by making a joint merit list at the State level. It was further averred in the written statement that Balbir Singh (present petitioner) had secured 26 marks in the District Police Cadre as also in the Armed Police Cadre, whereas last selected candidate in District Police Cadre had secured 30.5 marks and 29.5 marks in the Armed Police Cadre. Accordingly, it was stated that as per the consolidated merit list prepared at the State level, petitioners therein Balbir Singh and Daljit Singh have not obtained a sufficiently high merit position so as to secure appointment as Constable against the Freedom Fighters Category. It would be relevant to extract hereunder paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the preliminary submissions contained in the written statements filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to Civil Writ Petition No. 22588 of 2010:

That it is submitted that 104 posts of constables in P.A.P. and 83 posts in District Police, Patiala were allotted by the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh and the same were advertised in the News paper dated 28.02.2010, 1% vacancies were reserved for the wards of freedom fighters. As per the memo No. 7562-68 dated 9.6.2010 issued by Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh, the vacancies reserved for wards/dependent of freedom fighter in District Police Cadre and Armed Police Cadre were taken out of the preview of recruitment Board. (Copy of it is attached herewith as Annexure R-1). Vide memo No. 6955-61/E-1 (4), Chandigarh dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure R-2) issued by Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh, the record of application of wards of freedom fighter category were ordered to be sent to IGP Zonal II, Jalandhar for preparing of consolidated merit. In District Patiala two candidates i.e. Daljit Singh s/o. Kuldeep Singh Roll No. 7741/DP and Roll No. 7424/DP and Roll No. 6930/AP were interviewed in this category and their record was sent to I.G.P. Zonal-II, Jalandhar for consolidation merit as per orders passed by Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh. In compliance with the orders passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh, the record of the petitioners were sent to I.G.P. Zonal-II, Jalandhar by the SSP Patiala for further action.

That it is further submitted final result of wards of freedom fighters was prepared by the concerned district Chairman of the recruitment board and on receipt of result of all the candidates of this category consolidated final merit list of wards of freedom fighter for enlistment as Constable in District Police Cadre and Armed Police Cadre was prepared by the I.G.P. Zonal-II, Jalandhar vide Annexures R-3 and R-4 out of which proposed selection/waiting list of wards of freedom fighters for enlistment as Constable in District Police Cadre and Armed Police Cadre was prepared vide Annexure R-5 and R-6 respectively and the same was sent to the office of Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh for its approval vide memo No. 18120/A-2 dated 14.10.2010 by the I.G.P. Zonal-II, Jalandhar. The Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh approved same vide his office memo No. 15668/E-1(4) dated 11.11.2010 with the direction that 12 candidates who have been selected in District Police Cadre be divided 3/3 in four Zones of the department and 15 candidates selected for Armed Police Cadre be allotted to Director General of Police, Armed Bn. P.A.P. Jalandhar Cantt. alongwith their record.

That so far as the non-selection of the petitioners of the instant C.W.P. is concerned, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner i.e. Balbir Singh and Daljit Singh stands at Sr. No. 32 and 35 respectively in Armed Police Cadre (Annexure R-4). Similarly, their name stands at Sr. No. 35 and 40 in District Police Cadre respectively (Annexure R-3).

That it is submitted that in compliance of letter dated 11.11.2010, 15 candidates selected in Armed Police Cadre were allotted to Director General of Police, Armed Bn. P.A.P. Jalandhar Cantt. and 12 selected candidates were allotted/divided 3 each to four Zones of the State as per final selection list approved by the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh. It is relevant to mention here that all the candidates who applied in this quota were examined for this recruitment at district level and so far as their merit list is concerned that was prepared at State level. Petitioners - Daljit Singh and Balbir Singh secured total 25.5 and 26 marks in District Police Cadre and 25.75 and 26 in Armed Police Cadre respectively, whereas last selected candidates Arjinder Singh S/o. Ranjit Singh in District Police Cadre secured total 30.5 marks and Manvir Singh S/o. Gurmit Singh secured total 29.5 marks in Armed Police Cadre. As such the answering respondents have not infringed any right of the petitioners by not including their name in final selection list, because the selection was made purely on the basis of merit and the petitioners could not qualify to come in the merit list, as such the petitioners are not entitled to any appointment.

The writ petition, however, was disposed of on 17.5.2011 in the following terms:

C.W.P. No. 22588 of 2010

The petitioners are claiming consideration for appointment as Constables in District Patiala under the Freedom Fighter''s category. In a similar matter being C.W.P. No. 6051 of 2011 titled as Gurtej Singh v. State of Punjab & others, where the petitioner was seeking appointment as Constable in District Ludhiana under the Freedom Fighter''s category, this Court passed the following order:-

In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment, in accordance with rules, under the freedom fighter''s category from District Ludhiana.

Ms. Kohli has no objections, if, the similar order is passed in this petition.

In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned order. Petitioners'' case may be considered for appointment as Constables in District Patiala under the Freedom Fighter''s category.

The order dated 17.5.2011 passed by this Court has not been a subject matter of challenge thereafter. State has not even sought a review thereof. As such, the directions contained in the order dated 17.5.2011 i.e. for the petitioner''s claim to be considered for appointment as Constable pertaining to District Patiala under the Freedom Fighters Category shall hold the field.

Strangely, the State in its reply submitted, has again sought to justify the passing of the impugned order dated 29.9.2011, Annexure P14, re-iterating the stand taken in the earlier writ petition i.e. the petitioner has been held to be not selected on the basis of a consolidated merit list prepared for the Freedom Fighters category at the State level. This would be in clear violation of the orders dated 17.5.2011 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 22588 to 2010, Annexure P13, which has since attained finality and in the light of which the petitioner''s right stood crystallized to be considered for appointment as Constable against the Freedom Fighters category confined to Patiala District.

Appended along with the reply is Annexure R3 i.e. a merit list for the wards of Freedom Fighters for enlistment as Constables in District Police Cadre. In this list, the name of the petitioner figures at Serial No. 35 having secured a total of 26 marks. In such list, there is no other candidate belonging to District Patiala who has secured a higher merit position. Likewise, along with the written statement at Annexure R4 is the merit list for the wards of Freedom Fighters for enlistment as Constables in the Armed Police Cadre. Herein name of the petitioner is reflected at Serial No. 32 again having secured a total of 26 marks. Even in such merit list pertaining to Armed Police Cadre, there is no candidate belonging to Patiala District who has secured more marks than the petitioner. The petitioner as per Annexures R3 and R4 is the most meritorious candidate under the wards of Freedom Fighters Category under Patiala District both under the District Police Cadre and Armed Police Cadre. As such, the impugned order dated 29.9.2011 at Annexure P14 cannot sustain.

Even otherwise, the petitioner had applied for appointment as Constable under the wards of Freedom Fighters Category in pursuance to the advertisements at Annexures P2 and P3. Recruitment to the post in question against all categories had to be regulated in the light of terms and conditions contained therein. As per advertisement, recruitment for both District Police Cadre and Armed Police Cadre was to be at the District level at the hands of a District Recruitment Board. There was a categoric stipulation in both the advertisements to the following effect:

Note - The recruitment would be made in all Districts by the concerned Boards simultaneously.

This was a clear pointer as regards recruitment to be conducted at the District level. Even the result of all the categories i.e. General Category and other reserved categories was declared separately for Patiala District except for the wards of Freedom Fighters Category. Insofar as the wards of Freedom Fighters Category is concerned, the respondent-Authorities have finalized the selection list at the State level. The selection process having been initiated as per advertisements at Annexures P2 and P3 at the District level, no such deviation was permissible. Even though, it is true that a candidate does not get any right to the post by merely making an application for the same, but a right is created in his favour for being considered for the post in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Such right cannot be affected by an administrative decision having been taken subsequent to the initiation of the recruitment process. That would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game has commenced.

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.9.2011 at Annexure P14 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be appointed as Constable against the wards of Freedom Fighters Category in Patiala District forthwith. Such appointment shall relate back to the date when other candidates under such category had been so appointed. The petitioner is also held entitled to all the consequential benefits in the nature of pay fixation, seniority etc. except for actual payment of salary for the period in question.

It is clarified that since it is only the petitioner who has come forward staking his claim for appointment as Constable under the wards of Freedom Fighters Category at the District level, no directions are being issued to re-conduct the entire process of selection against such category. Likewise, the appointment of Manjit Singh son of Darshan Singh, respondent No. 4, who otherwise belongs to Sangrur District and has been appointed in Patiala District is also not being set aside on account of a categoric averment made in his written statement that he had secured more marks than one Baljinder Singh son of Amar Singh who also belongs to District Sangrur and has been allocated to District Tarn Taran. Since the appointment of the petitioner as per directions contained in this order shall entail making available of one post of Constable in District Patiala, it is left to the discretion of the respondent-Authorities to work out the modalities in relation thereto, but after strict adherence to the due process of law. Writ petition allowed in the aforesaid terms.