A.L. Bahri, J. - (1.) VIDE this order seven writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos. 10062 of 15838 of 1993, 67, 210, 390, 829 and 1463 of 1994) are being disposed of as the question involved therein is common i.e. validity of the nominations made by the Competent Authority to the Punjab Public Service Commission for selection to the post of P.C.S (Executive Branch). The department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Punjab issued circular dated June 24, 1993 in terms of provisions of Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch)(Class I) Rules, 1976 for making recommendations for filling 9 vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) to be filled up from Register A -II, the Competent Authorities were requested to recommend the names of suitable and eligible candidates in the prescribed forms. The nominations were to be sent as early as possible but in no case later than one month from the date of issue of the circular letter after which it was to be presumed that such authorities had no candidates to nominate. Such Competent Authority would also take into consideration the deserving persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes though no reservation existed for such classes. Certain other conditions were also laid down which are not necessary for decision of these writ petitions. On November 10, 1993, another circular was issued under Rule 10(1) of the Rules mentioning the names of the Authorities and number of nominations to be made by such Authorities as under: JUDGEMENT_72_LAWS(P&H)4_1994.htm It was further mentioned therein that for the reasons recorded Chief Minister was required to make four nominations instead of two. This was ordered by relaxing the Rules as per power conferred under Rule 28 of the Rules.
(2.) THE Chief Minister made four nominations. Some of the ministers initially made one nomination each. However, subsequently they desired that by relaxation of the Rules their other nominations be also taken into consideration. Thus, some of the ministers made more than one nomination. The Chief Secretary did make five nominations. However, he devised a method of selection which is required to be noticed. 70 marks out of lot of 100 were to be considered for service record. 10 marks were for the length of service, 20 marks were for written test i.e. in English and Punjabi 10 marks for each subject. Since he provided the aforesaid formula it took some time to hold the test, and his recommendations obviously were made after expiry of the period mentioned in the circular mentioned above. The Personnel Department of the State Government scrutinised different nominations made by the respective authorities and ultimately forwarded the names of such of the candidates whose nominations were found to be in order and rejected some nominations which led to the filing of the present set of writ petitions. C.W.P. No. 67 of 1994 has been filed by Gurjit Singh, who at the relevant time of making nominations happened to be posted in the office of Minister of Public Works. He worked there from July 22, 1993 to July 26, 1993. His name was recommended by the Minister concerned but was withheld by the Government (Punjab Government in the Personnel Department). Some instances were mentioned in the writ petition of such of the persons who had worked for a short -while in some offices or under some officers and their names were recommended by the competent Authority and subsequently forwarded to the Public Service Commission. The details of four such persons are given in para 16 of the writ petition and briefly are as under: (a) Gurdip Singh, Senior Assistant Health -II Branch: Minister for Medical Education and Research nominated his name and the aforesaid minister took charge on July 9, 1993. (b) Mukand Singh Sandhu, Sr. Assistant Education -I Branch: The Education Minister (Shri Lakhbir Singh Randhawa) took over as such on July 9, 1993 and recommended the name of Mr. Sandhu during the period upto July 1993. (c) Tarlochan Singh Mankotia, PA to Governor. On the date of alleged nomination, he was working with the Governor and his name was recommended by the Chief Secretary. (d) Baljinder Singh Sodhi, P.A. to Secretary Health Chief Secretary never saw his work but nominated him.
(3.) IN the written statement filed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel some preliminary objections were taken, inter alia. Challenging locus standi of the Petitioner to challenge the action of the State Government. Only the nominating authority could object. No legal right of the Petitioner was infringed that he could approach this Court. Even a successful candidate could not exert any right to be appointed. The name of the Petitioner and the like other 15 in number were withheld on account of certain deficiencies and infirmities. Such nominations were not found to be in order or valid. Reliance was placed on the Rules briefly quoted above that the Competent Authority could nominate such number of persons as mentioned in Rule 10. Reference was made to Rule 10(2) providing eligibility of the persons to be nominated. There were three conditions as mentioned therein which deserves to be noticed at this stage. (a) The person concerned should be a confirmed hand, had completed 10 years continuous service under the Government; (b) That he was under 45 years of age on the first day of November immediately preceding the date of submission of names; (c) That he is a Graduate of a recognised University. The Final Authority of forwarding the nominated names to the Public Service Commission was Government (Punjab Government in the Personnel Department). The Government was to see that the nomination was in order and valid and could reject such names which were not in order. Reference was made to the Government of Punjab Allocation of Business Rules, 1986 in respect of different departments of the Government to work under different Secretaries etc. The department of Personnel Policies Wing, Administrative Reforms, Training Wing and Establishment matters were under the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms under the control of the Chief Secretary and under the Chief Minister. The withholding of the nominations which were not in order was done under orders of the Chief Minister and not merely at the level of the Chief Secretary. Suitability, on the basis of merit it was alleged, was the function of the Punjab Public Service Commission. On merits it was stated that Gurjit Singh Petitioner succeeded in getting himself posted temporarily against a non -sanctioned post firstly as an internal arrangement and that too just a day before the last date fixed for the receipt of nominations. Normally such posting transfer could be made from amongst the leave reserve officials and not from amongst those who already stood regularly posted in a particular department. The Petitioner was posted temporarily for flood duty and he worked for this purpose just for 2 days. His temporary posting could not be taken at par with permanent posting. Reference was made to Annexures R.1 and R.2. Vide Annexure R.1 the Minister of State for Public Works on July 21, 1993 required Shri Gurjit Singh to be posted in his office for attending urgent office work for few days on account of flood situation. Vide Annexure R.2 an order passed by Joint Secretary on July 22, 1995 Gurjit Singh was temporarily posted upto July 26, 1993 in the office of Minister of State for Public Works. After that he was to join his previous Branch. On merits in para 5 of the written statement it was asserted that the nomination made by a nominating authority was required to be objective and not subjective in nature. No joining/charge relinquishing report of the Petitioner existed in the office record. Thus it was wrong to say that the Petitioner worked under the concerned nominating authority (Minister). Though in 1976 Rules, there was nothing mentioned about the limit or period of work under the prescribed nominating authority. It was improbable that a person who succeeded himself to be temporarily posted for a few days, could get himself validly nominated.;