BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.