Harish Kumar Mittal vs State of Punjab and Another

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner, who belongs to the General Category and was claiming appointment to the post of Inspector

Grade-II, had approached this Court earlier in point of time by filing CWP No. 5776 of 2013. Such petition was disposed of on 18.3.2013 by

granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation and further directions were issued that, if, any such representation is made, the

same shall be considered by the respondent-authorities by passing a speaking order. In deference to the order dated 18.3.2013 an order dated

19.6.2013 (Annexure P-8) has been passed by the Commissioner, Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Punjab, whereby the

claim of the petitioner seeking appointment to the post of Inspector Grade-II, has been rejected. It is towards impugning such order dated

19.6.2013 (Annexure P-8) that the instant writ petition has been filed. A few facts would require notice. The respondent-department had issued an

advertisement in February, 2010 inviting applications for filling up 1289 posts of Inspector Grade-II (Group C) by way of direct recruitment. In the

advertisement itself, it had been made clear that the merit would be determined solely on the basis of a Written Examination and there would be no

interview. An exercise of counselling was to be conducted only to verify the original certificates/testimonials of the candidates. The petitioner, who

was eligible had applied for the post and accordingly had been permitted to appear in the Written Examination, which was held on 18.4.2010. In

such Written Examination the petitioner secured 43.84% marks. The first process of counselling was conducted in the month of May, 2010 in

which candidates who had secured 44.35% marks or above, had been called. The petitioner, as per merit position, was not eligible to participate

in such first counselling. The second process of counselling was held from 18.11.2010 to 25.11.2010. It is the conceded case of the petitioner

himself that he did not come present in this process of counselling. Apparently, the merit list, thereafter was revised and accordingly, the marks of

the petitioner were also increased from 43.84% to 46.58%. However, in the subsequent process of counselling that was conducted in May, 2011,

the petitioner was not even issued a call letter and this forms the precise and entire grievance of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the light of such revised merit list the petitioner was vested with a right for

consideration for appointment to the post of Inspector Grade-II and the action of the respondent-authorities in not having called the petitioner for

the subsequent counselling on 18.5.2011 would be untenable in law, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel has further raised a submission that upon having approached the respondent-authorities at a subsequent stage, the Joint Secretary of the

respondent-department had even observed in the month of August, 2012 that a posting order should be issued in favour of the petitioner, as per

merit position. In the light of such submissions, a prayer has been made for quashing of the impugned order dated 19.6.2013 (Annexure P-8) and

further directions are sought for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for directing the respondent-authorities to appoint the petitioner as Inspector

Grade-II.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length.

The validity of the impugned order dated 19.6.2013 (Annexure P-8) would require adjudication against the backdrop of the representation that

had been filed by the petitioner on account of the liberty having been granted by this Court while disposing of CWP No. 5776 of 2013. The

representation dated 1.4.2013 that had been submitted by the petitioner and upon consideration of which the impugned order has been passed,

has been placed on record as Annexure P-7. A perusal of the same would make it apparent that broadly two pleas had been raised. Firstly, it had

been contended that the respondent-department had issued individual call letters for the first and third round of counselling but it was only in

relation to the second round that the procedure of sending call letters to the candidates had been given a go-by. Accordingly, it was contended in

the representation that had call letters been issued even for the second round of counselling that had been held on 18.11.2010, the petitioner would

have attended such process and as per merit he would have secured appointment. The second plea raised in the representation was to the effect

that the posts in question are still lying vacant and as such, no prejudice would be caused to anyone, if, the petitioner was to be considered against

any such vacant post.

In the impugned order both the contentions raised by the petitioner have been adequately dealt with. It has been noticed in the impugned order

that for the second round of counselling a public notice/advertisement had been issued in the newspapers on 2.11.2010 in which the name of the

petitioner along with father''s name had been duly mentioned but inspite thereof the petitioner had failed to attend the counselling on 18.11.2010.

As regards posts lying vacant, the impugned order recites that on account of merger of the post of Inspector Grade-II Cadre into Inspector

Grade-I, no post of Inspector Grade-II exists. Such factual position does not carry any rebuttal in the averments contained in the present writ

petition.

The other submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as regards even a posting order having been directed to be issued to the

petitioner, would be of no consequence. I am of the considered view that such a submission is only an after thought. Such a contention was not

even raised much less suggested in the representation dated 1.4.2013 upon the consideration of which the impugned order dated 19.6.2013

(Annexure P-8), has been passed.

The impugned order has been passed on valid and cogent grounds and does not call for any interference. Writ petition is, accordingly,

dismissed.