Vijay Kumar Syal vs State of Punjab and others

The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant-Vijay Kumar Syal assailing the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2015 passed in CWP

No.4413 of 1995 and other connected petitions, by the learned Single Judge declining to grant any relief to the petitioner in the matter of non-selection

of the appellant to the post in question.

The appellant-Vijay Kumar Syal had filed CWP No.7359 of 1995 in this Court, on 07.03.1995 putting challenge to the process of selection adopted by

the Punjab Public Service Commission (for short Commission') in respect of vacancies that arose in 1991 for the post of PCS (Executive Branch).

The ground of challenge raised by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court, in fact, was that the constitution of

selection committee was illegal and wrong, that the selections made by the Commission in respect of the respondents to the writ petitions were liable

to be set aside, even in respect of the allotment of marks to them and the criteria or method of grading adopted by the Commission. Though, the

process of selection was conducted in the year 1994, the result was declared only in March, 1995 and thus, there were mala-fides in the selection

process that was undertaken in the year 1995 and appointments were made accordingly. The appellant-Mr. Syal appeared before us, in person, and

submitted that he is working as Sub Divisional Officer, with the Government of Punjab and would attain the age of superannuation by 31.07.2018 and

that is the reason why we took up his appeal on his insistence for final hearing.

We have heard Mr. Syal in person for quite some time and learned counsel for the respondents. We have carefully perused the record. It is not in

dispute that the appellant-Vijay Kumar Syal had participated in the process of selection before the selection committee constituted by the Commission.

The selection had taken place in September 1994 and the result was declared in March, 1995. He failed in getting selected. It is true that the appellant

filed his writ petition immediately thereafter, in the year 1995 itself to challenge the selection process. But then, writ petition remained pending in this

Court till, it was decided on 01.07.2015 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It is also an admitted position that the selected candidates whose

selection was challenged by the appellant had already joined their respective posts, and therefore, their appointments continued for all these years.

Despite the fact that the appellant had participated in the process of selection and he would not be entitled to challenge the selection process, we

heard Mr. Syal for quite some time. We find that the ground regarding mala-fides alleged by him in the writ petition against the respondents fall in the

realm of serious disputed question of facts. It would not have been possible to draw any definite conclusion on such seriously disputed questions of

facts in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, by the learned Sigle Judge. Having recorded a detailed judgment, learned Single Judge, ultimately, in the

order dated 01.07.2015 passed in CWP No.4413 of 1995, held as under:-

“76. In conclusion, having said all of the above, in view of what has been held with regard to the non-feasibility of quashing a selection process

after 20 years, this Court has no option but to dismiss the petition, with a pious hope that further selection processes would be made in a more

transparent manner. Practicably, though a direction would otherwise need to be issued, even in terms of what was observed by their Lordships of the

Full Bench, that selection criteria must be framed immediately upon receipt of requisition by a selection body and no change in such criteria, which

must be duly though out, can be effected thereafter, till the selection process is wholly complete; however, the Commission itself framing the criteria

not being in consonance with what has been held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahus' case (supra), the direction to be issued, has to

be in consonance with what has been held in that case, i.e. that the selection criteria for higher posts, especially those of the Civil Services and higher

level posts to be manned by technologists and professionals, should be framed by the Government itself and incorporated in the Rules governing such

body. Therefore, to ensure that consistency is maintained in future selections, the respondent State is, consequently, directed to frame the criteria to be

adopted by the Commission for selection to the service and to incorporate the same in the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class-I) Rules,

1976 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the above, nothing more needs to be said, except

that the directions contained herein above, be conveyed to both, the Government as also the Commission, by the Registry of this Court, forthwith.â€​

Upon perusal of the above conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge, we find that no fault can be found out with the course adopted by the

learned Single Judge, to interfere in the writ petition. After all it is well settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is

a discretionary jurisdiction. It was difficult in the year 2015 to tinker with the selection and appointments made in March 1995. Therefore, in our

opinion, the learned Single Judge was right in declining to grant any relief to the petitioner/appellant.

As stated by us earlier, the appellant is a Sub-Divisional Officer under the Government of Punjab and we hope that he would have a peaceful retired

life. In the result, we do not find any reason to interference with the impugned judgment. Hence, we make the following order:-