Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners in these three Civil Writ petitions Nos. 4702, 6065 and 8928 of 1994, were candidates for the posts of Clerks in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa. They are aggrieved by the action of the State Government in ordering the cancellation of the selection and in not appointing them to the posts of Clerks for which they had been selected. The Petitioners pray for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the order by which the selections have been cancelled and to direct the Respondents to appoint them as Clerks. Learned Counsel for the parties have referred to the pleadings in Civil Writ Petition No. 8928 of 1994. These may be briefly noticed.
(2.) AS a sequel to the creation of the Revenue District of Mansa, various categories of posts were sanctioned. The Deputy Commissioner issued an advertisement inviting applications for the Class -III posts of Clerks, Stenotypists and Senior Scale Stenographers. The applications had to be submitted by July 15, 1992. According to this advertisement, the eligible candidates were required to appear in the written and Punjabi typing test which was to be held from July 17 to 20, 1992. The test was 'cancelled till further orders'. On August 2, 1992 a fresh advertisement was issued by which applications were invited not only for the posts of Clerks etc. but also for certain additional categories of posts including those in Class IV. On September 15, 1992, the date for holding a screening test for the posts of Clerks was notified. The Petitioner -Jasbir Singh appeared in the test alongwith various other eligible candidates. All candidates who had secured atleast 50 per cent marks in the test, were called for interview. Thereafter, the result was prepared. The Petitioner averts that he having secured good marks had been selected. However, the Chief Minister intervened and directed the Deputy Commissioner (Dr. Swaran Singh) to give letters of appointment to the candidates named in the eight lists, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P -5 to P -12 with the writ petition. Since these persons had not even applied for the posts and the process of selection had already been completed the Deputy Commissioner expressed his inability to appoint them. However, even the Petitioner and the other selected candidates were also not appointed. Consequently, some of the selected candidates including the Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 5863, 6455 and 6456 of 1993. In response to the 'notice of motion' issued by a Bench, a written statement was filed by the Respondents. In this written statement, it was inter alia pointed out that on receipt of certain complaints, a senior I.A.S, Officer (Mr. Rajesh Chhabra) had been appointed to hold an enquiry regarding the validity of selection which was in progress. The motion Bench disposed of the writ petitions on September 8, 1993 with the following observations: After hearing counsel for the parties, we thought that two options could be given in the circumstances aforesaid (i) by giving a direction to the Respondents to constitute a fresh selection committee which would interview the candidates, who had passed the written test and prepare fresh selection list, (ii) to direct the Respondents to complete the enquiry expeditiously and thereafter to either accept the report and finalise the selection already made or if the findings are otherwise to have the new selection committee as already mentioned above, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners is unable to make any choice of these two options and we are of the view that at this stage a direction be given to the Respondents to complete the enquiry expeditiously, within a period of two months and thereafter pass appropriate orders thereon. It is directed accordingly. All the three writ petitions are disposed of as above. According to the Petitioner, the directions issued by the Bench were not complied with. He consequently filed a contempt petition No. 1049 of 1993. It was dismissed. The Petitioner alleges that Dr. Swaran Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner was transferred and his successor (Mr. Joginder Pal Singh Puri) "was again asked by the Chief Minister to issue appointment letters. The Deputy Commissioner wrote DO letter to the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division that selection has already been made and there is no infirmity in the selection and he may be allowed to issue appointment letters. The Commissioner forwarded the same to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue i.e. Respondent No. 1 who is the highest authority. The Financial Commissioner sought the approval of the Chief Minister but as the Chief Minister had already given the lists, he did not agree". All of a sudden, the Chief Minister cancelled the appointments on the ground that no "logical criterion" had been adopted for conducting the selections. The decision was published in a Newspaper on February 24, 1994. A copy of the news item has been appended with the writ petition as Annexure P -13. According to the Petitioner, the appointing authority in the case of Clerks, Assistants, Stenotypists and the Superintendents, is the Deputy Commissioner. His orders could not be changed by any other authority. It was only because the persons recommended by the Chief Minister had not been appointed that the selection conducted by the Deputy Commissioner had been cancelled. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondents, the Petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The action of the Respondents in cancelling the selection and in not issuing the appointment letters to the selected candidates has been challenged as being arbitrary, mala fide, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice.
(3.) THE writ petition had been filed oh July 7, 1994. It had come up for hearing before us on July 8, 1994. Initially, the Petitioner had impleaded the State of Punjab through the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, as Respondents. However, at the stage of motion hearing, he made an oral prayer for impleading Mr. Gurmit Singh (Political Secretary to the Chief Minister, Punjab), who had signed two of the lists, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P -5 and P -6, as a Respondent. By our order dated July 8, 1994, we had allowed the request of the learned Counsel and directed that Mr. Gurmit Singh be impleaded as Respondent. A written statement on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was filed by Mr. Joginder Pal Singh Puri, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Mansa. Mr. Gurmit Singh, Respondent No. 3 filed a separate affidavit. 4. IN the written statement filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it has been inter alia pleaded that for recruitment of clerks in the office of the Deputy commissioner, a written test was held in the year 1992 and the candidates who had secured 50 per cent or more marks were called for interview. Before the result could be declared, the entire selection process for filling -up the posts of clerks and other categories was "made subject matter of enquiry as some serious irregularities had been alleged in the selection of candidates including the Petitioner. Till the competent authority was fully satisfied on the basis of findings of enquiry officer that the selection process had been carried out according to established procedures, rules and instructions, it had every right to withhold issue of appointment orders. The mere recommendation by the Departmental Selection Committee of a candidate for a particular post does not vest in him/her any right of appointment." It has been stated that the enquiry was finalised in the month of December 1993 and it was inter alia found that no proper criterion had been adopted, the members of the Selection Committee were not properly associated by the Deputy Commissioner and that "the three members of the Departmental Selection Committee have been silent spectators in the process." In view of these findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Government had declared the selection to be null and void. The suggestion that the new Deputy Commissioner bad been posted with the directions to issue appointment letters to the persons mentioned in the lists, has been denied by Mr. Puri, According to the Respondents, the State Government is competent to go into the legality and propriety of the selections made by subordinate officers and the orders of cancellation had been passed on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is stated that "no ulterior motive can be attributed to the cancellation of the selection". The averments in the petition regarding the intervention of the Chief Minister and, his insistence that the persons mentioned in the lists (copies of which have been appended as Annexures P -5 to P -12) be appointed, have been denied as being "motivated, scandalous and irresponsible". It has also been alleged that the allegations have been made "at the instance of some politicians to undermine the popularity and dignity of the Chief Minister." The allegation that the action of the Respondents is arbitrary, unfair, violative of the principles of natural justice or of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, has also been denied. It has been highlighted that the selection lists alleged to have been prepared on February 10, 1993 by Dr. Swaran Singh were handed over to the new Deputy Commissioner on May 29, 1993. It has also been pointed out that there were complaints dated November 5, 1992, January 11, 1993, March 5, 1993, April 30, 1993, June 2, 4 and 10, 1993 by different persons/organisations questioning the validity of the selection. It was on the basis of these complaints that an enquiry had been ordered by the Government on July 6, 1993 and Mr. Rajesh Chhabra, IAS was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. His report was accepted by the State Government, - -vide its order dated February 17, 1994. By this order, the selections made during the tenure of Dr. Swaran Singh for the posts of Senior Assistants Senior Scale Stenographers, Stenotypists, Clerks, Drivers, Peons, Sweepers, Mali -cum -Chowkidar and Water Carriers were cancelled and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to make fresh selections for the various Class III and IV posts in the District. The case had come up for hearing before us on August 10, 1994. On that date, written statement was not filed by Mr. Gurmit Singh. The case was, consequently, adjourned to August 16, 1994. We had also directed Mr. Gurmit Singh to, be personally present in Court. Learned Council appearing for the State was directed to produce the original record. Mr. Gurmit Singh had, accordingly, filed an affidavit. In his affidavit, it has been averred that he could verify the factual position regarding the signatures on the lists appended as Annexures P -5 and P -6 after seeing the original documents. The Respondent points out that the Chief Minister is too busy dealing with the Government work. He is also the President of the Punjab Pradesh Congress and has to look after the affairs of the party in the State. Since he is also a member of the Congress Working Committee, he has to visit Delhi quite often in connection with the Congress Party work at the all India level. Hundreds of thousands of people come to meet the Chief Minister for seeking redressal of their grievances. It is not possible for the Chief Minister to meet everybody. He, being the Political Secretary to the Chief Minister, the people meet him and convey their grievances either orally or in writing. As a Political Secretary, it is his duty to listen to the grievances of the Public including those of the members of Legislative Assemblies, Panchayat Samitis etc. According to the Respondent, his job is "to see the persons and to listen to their complaints, grievances or their needs so that the grievances be looked into by the authorities concerned". He further states that his "general instructions are that whenever a complaint comes to him about anything or any grievance is out before him by any body whether in the matter of employment or in the matter of roads, village paths, irrigation matters or revenue matters and so on he should mark the same to the proper, authorities or give it to the persons concerned who can deal with them so that if the grievance is legitimate, the same is removed. The deponent never asks any authority concerned to act in a particular manner. The matter is forwarded to the authorities concerned to deal with the same and to do justice. It is for the concerned authorities to see that if the grievance is legitimate, the same may be removed. The deponent has been instructed by the Chief Minister not to interfere in the work of any statutory body or legal authority". Many people belonging to the various strata of Society come seeking employment. He forwards their cases to the concerned authorities for consideration on merit. Regarding the eight lists produced as Annexures P -5 to P -12 with the writ petition, the Respondent has averred that, he could make a proper reply after seeing the original documents.;