- (1.) This writ petition was filed for issuing directions to the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Chandigarh (in short the 'Board') to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer and further for quashing the appointments of Respondents No. 2 to 6 as Assistant Engineers in the Board.
(2.) The Board had issued an advertisement in the daily Tribune, inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil). The petitioner had applied for the post and appeared in the interview held on 4th January, 1983. One Daljit Singh and Surjit Singh (Respondent No. 2) were appointed as Assistant Engineers on 24th June, 1983; whereas Respondents No. 3 to 6 were appointed as such on 9th August, 1983.
(3.) The petitioner challenged the appointments of Respondents No. 2 to 6 by filing a writ petition, being C.W.P. 3754 of 1984, in which reply was filed by the respondent-Board, Para No. 2, of the Preliminary objections b the written statement was in the following terms: "Even otherwise there is no violation of the petitioner's right. He has infact not disclosed full facts. The Board had advertised 'a' temporary post of Asstt. Engr. (Civil) in the scale of Rs. 940-1850 (with two advance increments in the time scale being admissible to the incumbents possessing post graduate degree in Civil Engineering)". In the year 1982, a committee consisting of the Secretary, the Chief Engineer and a member of the Board was constituted to recommend suitable person/s. The committee's recommendation is at annexure R. 1. After consideration of the matter it was decided that the post may not be filled and the case for the present may be filed. Subsequently, on a further reference from the office, the Chairman who is the appointing authority decided to appoint Mr. Daljit Singh who was at No. 1 in the list of graduates in Engineering and Mr. Surjit Singh who was at No. 2 in the list of Diploma Holders. Accordingly, letters of appointments were issued to both of them on 24.6.1983. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was duly considered for the post in question. He was interviewed. He was however not included in list prepared by the Committee. Copy of the recommendation of the Committee is already at Annexure R. 1 No. right of the petitioner was then violated. The averment that he was higher than the persons appointed in order of merit is totally false and baseless. The other appointments have been made against posts which were not a part of the advertisement in question. These appointments were ordered by the Chairman and thereafter the letters of appointments were issued on 9.8.93.";