Sukhvir Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Deepak Sibal, J.—Through the present petition, the petitioner knocks the doors of this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-Punjab Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ''Corporation'') to appoint the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).

A few facts may be noticed.

Through advertisement dated 11.11.2011, the respondent- Corporation invited applications for filling up several posts including 44 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil). Out of the 44 posts, 21 posts were to be filled up from amongst the candidates belonging to the General Category i.e. the category to which the petitioner belongs. As the petitioner fulfilled all the prescribed qualifications, he applied for consideration of his candidature for appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil). As per the selection process, the appointment was to be on the basis of merit to be determined through a written test, in which minimum qualifying marks prescribed were 50%. The written test was to be followed by interview which carried no marks but irrespective of the same was necessarily to be attended.

The petitioner appeared in the written test conducted on 31.03.2012 and on the declaration of the results qualified the same. In the merit list of the General Category, the petitioner stood at merit No. 33. The relevant portion of the merit list which was published with regard to the General Category is reproduced below:-

It is the admitted case between the parties that 20 out of the 21 posts meant for the General Category were filled up and the last person to be appointed against the 20th post was one Parveen Kumar son of Lachman Dass who stood at merit No. 31 in the merit list (as reproduced above). Thus, one post remain unfilled. In order of merit, between the petitioner and the above said Parveen Kumar was one Kushaldeep Singh Randhawa who admittedly did not appear for interview and thus, the petitioner staked his claim to the 21st post. His claim having been negatived gave him a cause to approach this Court through the present writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the record of the case.

Once, it is admitted that there were 21 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) meant for the General Category as advertised through the advertisement dated 11.11.2011, only 20 posts out of them had been filled up and that the petitioner was the next eligible candidate on merit, then it would not take me long to hold that the petitioner deserved to be appointed in accordance with his merit.

Out of the 21 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) so advertised to be filled up from amongst candidates belonging to the General Category, initially only 20 posts were filled up and the 20th post was offered to one Parveen Kumar son of Lachhman Dass. For the 21st post between Parveen Kumar and the petitioner was one Kushaldeep Singh who admittedly did not appear for interview when called for the same. Even otherwise, it is the unrebutted case of the petitioner that Kushaldeep Singh has never staked a claim for appointment against the 21st post meant for the General Category for the last over three years. On the other hand, the petitioner has been consistently clamouring for the same. That being so, I find no reason in fact or in law to deny the petitioner his rightful claim.

The stand of the respondent-Corporation that in the meanwhile another advertisement had been issued on 03.08.2012 through which more posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) had been advertised and therefore, they could not consider the case of the petitioner is a stand which needs to be considered only to be rejected. It is admitted by the respondents that through letter dated 25.01.2013 Kushaldeep Singh Randhawa who was one step higher than the petitioner, in the order of merit was asked to appear for the interview on 05.02.2013 but he did not appear for the same and therefore, he was declared ineligible. Thus, as per the respondent- Corporation''s own admission, candidates on the merit list qua the earlier advertisement dated 11.11.2011, i.e. the advertisement against which the petitioner was an applicant, were being considered even after the issuance of second advertisement on 03.08.2012. This is clear from the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation in Para No. 14 of the written statement filed before this Court, which is reproduced below for ready reference:-

"14. That in reply to the contents of para No. 14 of petition, it is stated that to fill up the left over/unfilled posts of CRA 01/2011, advertisement CRA 02/2012 was issued on 03.08.2012. In case of JE (Civil), Sh. Mohit Jindal was selected but was on extension upto 05.12.2012, as such the post was not carried forward. After expiry of extension, Sh. Kushaldeep Singh Randhawa, candidate next in merit was directed to appear on 25.01.2013 for documentation checking to be held on 05.02.2013, but he did not appear. Meanwhile as referred above, the Corporation concluded that the validity of CRA 01/2011 had completed its validity, when process of CRA 02/2012 had started, so the post could not be filled. Still further, the submissions made in the preliminary objections be read as part and parcel of the present reply."

[emphasis supplied].

It is further admitted before me that the post against which the petitioner seeks appointment was not included in the posts advertised through the later advertisement dated 30.08.2012.

In view of the above, I unhesitantly hold that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) as per his merit in pursuance to his application made in response to the advertisement dated 11.11.2011.

As soon as the candidate immediately higher in merit to the petitioner namely Kushaldeep Singh Randhawa did not appear for the interview on 05.02.2013, rendering himself ineligible, the post should have been offered to the petitioner and as this was not done, the petitioner was precluded from discharging his duties as Junior Engineer (Civil) due to the above inaction on the part of the respondent-Corporation. Accordingly, I hold him entitled to all consequential benefits including continuity of service w.e.f. 01.03.2013.

The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.

No costs.