- (1.) These are intra-court appeals, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against a judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 30.01.2014, vide which the civil writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.15645 & 15646 of 2011 and CWP No.3825 of 2012, were allowed by a common order. Appellants in LPA No.332 of 2014 are serving as Information and Public Relations Officers and LPA No.356 of 2014 is preferred by Assistant Public Relations Officers, in the Information and Public Relations Department, Punjab. In short, what was assailed and in question before the learned Single Judge was the selection and resultant appointments to the post of Information and Public Relations Officer. The impugned selection was set aside. Authorities were directed to recast the merit list after ignoring five extra marks awarded to the candidates who had qualified the Middle and Matriculation Examinations from the schools in rural areas and offer appointments to the candidates, who fall in the fresh select list as per the vacancies advertised. What indeed led to this stage, is something, that would be expedient to notice.
(2.) Eleven posts of Information and Public Relations Officer were advertised by the Information and Public Relations Department, Punjab, vide publication in "Ajit" on 11.09.2009. Five posts out of the total advertised posts, were meant for General Category, one for Scheduled Castes, one for Scheduled Castes (Sportsman), two for Scheduled Castes (BM), one for Scheduled Castes (ESM & others) and one for Backward Classes. The educational qualifications required were Master's degree in Public Relations and Journalism or Mass Communications or Journalism from a recognized University or Degree of Master of Arts in Punjabi or English from a recognized University and one year Post Graduate diploma in Mass Communications or Journalism or Public Relations. Document (Annexure P-5), which is a part of the file noting, revealed that the departmental selection Committee headed by the Chief Minister, Punjab, finalized the criteria for selection to the posts in question, in its meeting held on 12.03.2009. Evidently, it provided marks for qualifications/ publications, interview etc. The departmental selection Committee was constituted on 03.06.2009, to execute the process of selection. Advertisement, inviting applications from the eligible candidates was published on 11.09.2009. Besides the qualifications, experience and other necessary details, it was envisaged that candidates will have to appear in the written test. And that was held on 04.07.2010. As is discernible from the records, post written test, the issue in terms of the policy of the State as regards awarding five extra marks to the candidates, who had qualified their Middle and Matriculation Examinations from the schools in rural areas, was raised. Records revealed that in reference to another advertisement issued on 05.09.2007, for recruitment of Teachers, it was emphasized that a provision was made for providing weightage of five extra marks to the candidates from rural areas and the said policy was even approved by the Cabinet. It further recites that such weightage was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.04.2010 in Sudesh Rani v. State of Punjab, 2010 5 SLR 768. Thus, a proposal to provide five extra marks to the candidates in the aforesaid category was made. Since the provision for awarding five extra marks was never a part of the criteria originally prescribed, an approval of the Chief Minister was solicited.
(3.) The Chief Minister approved the said proposal on 03.10.2010. Resultantly, the total marks were increased from 100 to 105. Candidates in the aforesaid category were required to produce the relevant certificates at the time of interview, which were held from 06.12.2010 to 08.12.2010. Benefit of five extra marks was awarded at the time of preparation of final select list in April, 2011. Followed by appointments in July, 2011. As stated above, the said selections and consequent appointments were assailed by a civil writ petition, filed in August, 2011.;