BIKRAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-2021-3-217
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on March 25,2021

BIKRAMJIT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ARUN MONGA,J. - (1.)These writ petitions are being decided vide instant single order as material questions of facts and law involved for adjudication therein are common.
(2.)Relevant factual narrative, as per CWP No.26802/2018, succinctly is as under:
2.1 Punjab Government accorded sanction vide policy instructions dtd. 11/9/1996 (AnnexureP-1) to 2% posts for the wards of deserving policemen of the following categories, in direct recruitment of constables, Sub Inspectors and Inspectors out of the direct recruitment quota previously meant for handicapped persons.

Relevant of policy is as below:

The term "deserving " will cover wards of the following police personnel:

(i) Who have suffered casualities of one or more the following relatives:

1. Father

2. Mother

3. Sister/Brother

4. Son/Daughter

5. Any other dependent family member

(ii) Who has suffered permanent disability on the action against terrorist or attack by terrorist.
OR
(iii) Who has been awarded President's Police Gallantry or Police Medal for Gallantry bravery in actions against the terrorists.

OR (iv) Who has taken part in at least 3 encounters with terrorist.
OR
(v) Who otherwise in the opinion of the Director-General of Police has been in forefront of the fight against terrorism.

The "wards" proposed to covered widow, son, dependent daughter, dependent brother sister or any other dependent family member."

2.2 In the year 2010, CWP No. 13493/2010 and a few other connected writ petitions were filed in this Court invoking the above said policy seeking mandamus to appoint the concerned petitioners, against the reserved 2% posts for the wards of specified categories of deserving policemen. This Court suo motu expanded the scope of writ proceedings vide an order dtd. 15/9/2011, which reads as under:

"Let there be a show cause notice to the State Government to explain the legal sanctity behind providing 2% reservation for the wards of policemen for recruitment as Constables. Assistant Sub Inspectors and Inspectors out of direct recruitment quota which is apparently contrary to the decision of this Court in the case "Jagtar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others " 2006 (3) SLR 781 ?

List on 20/1/2012

Meanwhile, it is directed that till further orders, no appointment against the above stated 2% reserved posts shall be made in any rank.

Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for information and necessary compliance."

2.3 In the interregnum, Respondent No. 2 vide an advertisement (Annexure P-2) (Colly) published in "The Tribune" dtd. 29/9/2011 invited applications for direct recruitment of 3726 constables wherein 2% posts for wards of deserving policemen were reserved. Petitioner fulfilled the qualifications, was eligible, applied for and was selected on merits for appointment as a constable against 2% reserved posts for the wards of deserving policemen as shown in the list of selected candidates Annexure P-2(Colly).

2.4 Subsequently, aforesaid CWP No. 13493/2010 and the other connected writ petitions were finally disposed of by this Court vide judgment dtd. 11/3/2015 Annexure P-2directing as under:

"The only hitch before the State Government is because of the order dtd. 15/9/2011 in which the question was raised as to whether 2% reservation can be maintainable in view of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Jagtar Singh and others (supra). As I have already held that there is no quarrel with the judgment of Judgment of Jagtar Singh and others (supra), but had there been the reservation only on the basis of 'descent' because the reservation on the basis of 'descent' as provided under Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India has already been struck off by the Supreme Court in the case of Yogender Pal Singh and others (supra), then the said reservation could not have been claimed by the selected candidates but the reservation has been provided by virtue of a policy, referred to above, which has not been challenged either by the petitioner or the respondents, therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary to the Govt. and another (Supra), it is directed that the said policy would operate and the respondents/State shall consider the case of the petitioners in the remaining writ petitions, namely, CWP No.5147 of 2014, CWP No.20588 of 2013, CWP No. 24695 of 2012 and CWP No.21160 of 2012 for the purpose of issuing appointment letters to them in accordance with law.

With these observations, all the writ petitions, namely CWP No.5147 of 2014, CWP No. 20588 of 2013, CWP No. 24695 of 2012 and CWP No. 21160 of 2012 are hereby disposed of.

Before parting, it would be relevant to mention that in the 1st petition an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the CPC") has been filed by some of the persons, who were also selected and tried to intervene in this petition. Though there is no such writ petition on their behalf but keeping in view the fact they are similarly situated persons with those candidates who had filed their separate writ petition, in which it is pleaded that they have been selected but appointment letters are not issued to them because of the order passed by this court on 15/9/2011, their cases be also considered by the State while considering the case of the writ petitioners."

2.5 As a consequence, respondent No. 2 issued instructions vide letter dtd. 10/4/2015 Annexure P-4 to the concerned authorities directing that the candidates who had not joined duty and who were not issued appointment letters, be issued appointment letters as per the orders passed by this Court in CWP No. 13493/2010 and the other connected writ petitions.

2.6 Accordingly, petitioner was issued appointment letter dtd. 28/5/2015 (Annexure P-5) and joined duty. Some other similarly selected candidates were also issued appointment letters and joined duties.

2.7 However, a few other candidates, who were similarly selected against this reserved quota but were not issued appointment letters, filed writ petitions, including CWP No. 11606/2015. These were disposed of by this Court vide common order dtd. 16/1/2018 (Annexure P-9) in following terms:

In the circumstances, the instant writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine as to whether the case of the petitioners is at par with said Lakhvir Singh. If upon examination, the competent authority comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are at par with Lakhvir Singh, the consequential relief be accorded to them within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment subject to the following conditions :

1. All other candidates who applied for the post of Constable in 2% quota of wards of police personnel in the year 2011 will be considered subject to the conditions that they fall within requisite merit list of their respective district.

2. The appointment letter would be issued from fresh date after their fulfilling the conditions of medical fitness, scrutiny of documents, character verification etc.

3. They will be entitled for notional benefits for the purposes of seniority and no monetary benefits would be granted to them w.e.f 2011, as per the principle of 'No work No Pay'. Their pay and other service conditions would be as applicable on the date of their appointment.

In case, it is found that said Lakhvir Singh had been appointed in violation of the policy, the respondents shall take necessary action against him.

Disposed of"

2.8 Show cause notice dtd. 13/7/2018 Annexure P-10 was issued by respondent No. 3 asking for the petitioner's explanation before terminating his services. Its relevant parties as under:

Due to stay orders in Civil Writ Petition No. 13493 of 2010 tilted as Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, against the appointments for 2% quota, no 2% quota was kept reserved for the police wards in the advertisement of 2011. A corrigendum was also issued in this regard in the papers. Despite the same, you Lakhbir Singh No.672/Ferozepur and Bikramjit Singh No.77/Ferozepur have illegally applied by wrong means against the advertisement issued in September 2011 and obtained against 2% quota of police wards. By keeping in view the decisions of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Courts in various writ petitions, the Worthy Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh has granted permission to terminate your services. Therefore, before terminating your services, I am granting you an opportunity to give your explanation. In case you want to say something, then you are requested to submit a written reply to the undersigned within a period of 10 days from receipt of this notice.

You are also informed that in case, you do not submit any written reply within the stipulated period, then final order of punishment proposed against you shall be passed against you. "

2.9 The petitioner submitted his detailed reply dtd. 18/7/2018 Annexure P/ll defending his appointment. He also filed CWP No. 18051/2018 challenging the show cause notice. The said writ petition was dismissed as premature vide an order dtd. 24/7/2018 passed by this Court.

2.10 Impugned order dtd. 11/10/2018 Annexure P/13 was then passed by respondent No. 3 terminating the services of the petitioner herein and also of Lakhbir Singh, petitioner in connected CWP No.27457/2018.

2.11 Interim order dtd. 17/10/2018 was passed by this Court in the present writ petition (CWP No. 26802/2018) directing that the operation of the impugned order Annexure P/13 shall remain stayed qua the petitioner.

(3.)In their reply to the petition, respondents have pleaded that in the advertisement published in "The Tribune" on 29/9/2011, there was no mention of keeping any reservation for the wards of police personnel. Inadvertently, the news papers "Ajit" and "Punjab Kesri" on 28/9/2011 and 29/9/2011, respectively had printed wrong advertisements and published availability of vacancies under 2% quota meant for the wards of the police personnel. In order to rectify the same and make the position clear, a corrigendum was published highlighting that "no relaxation/benefit will be given to the wards of police personnel". This corrigendum was sent by the Director General of Police, Punjab (respondent No. 2) to the Director, Public Relations, Punjab, Chandigarh vide memo dtd. 4/10/2011 for publication in the newspapers namely "Ajit" "Punjab Kesri" and "The Tribune". Despite this, the petitioner herein and Lakhbir Singh applied for and were appointed under 2% quota for the wards of police personnel in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 28/29/9/2011. Therefore, respondent No. 2 vide letter dtd. 3/7/2018 directed the concerned SSP (respondent No. 3) to take necessary steps with regard to the illegal appointments of the petitioner herein and Lakhbir Singh as constables. In this connection, detailed order dtd. 8/8/2018 Annexure R/l was also issued by respondent No. 2. Show cause notices were issued to both these persons and after considering their replies, their services were rightly terminated. Preliminary objection was also taken that the aforesaid detailed order dtd. 8/8/2018, Annexure R/l, is binding on the petitioner, but has not even been referred to, let alone challenged by him and therefore, the petitioner is left with no claim for relief.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.