- (1.) The Punjab Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') on requisition sent by the State Government advertized 80 posts of Assistant District Attorneys in the State of Punjab. A general category candidate, the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.56 of the merit list prepared by the Commission. Letters of appointment were issued on 29th September, 2014 to 78 candidates competing in various categories. They were asked to join within 15 days. Out of 78 selected candidates, 29 candidates did not accept the offers of appointment. This position was the settled position on 13th March, 2015. Information received by the petitioner through Right to Information Act, 2005 revealed that candidates up to Sr.No.52 of the general select list had been called by employment offers, while 5 candidates failed to join the posts. Out of these 5 candidates, 2 candidates had refused offers in writing while the process of appointment of 3 candidates was going on. The information received confirms that out of 38 posts meant for General category, only 34 posts were filled. The petitioner has not been offered appointment. Feeling aggrieved, he made a representation on 29th July, 2015 to the respondents to consider his case for appointment against unfilled vacancies.
(2.) On notice, the State has filed its reply and contests the petition. It is not disputed that out of 38 General category vacancies, 24 candidates were issued letters of appointment, who have joined service. For the second time, offers of appointment were made to 29 candidates out of which, 14 were of General category. Out of these 14 candidates, 11 candidates of General category were given appointment. Two candidates namely Deepak Mehta and Sandeep Ohri refused to join the service. The candidature of one Ankur Gupta, who had accepted offer of appointment, was cancelled for failure to appear before the medical board.
(3.) To examine the issue involved, the question to be determined is whether the vacant posts could be filled from the select list prepared in the same recruitment process or not, the State Government avers that it sought clarification from the Commission regarding activation of the merit list from next below the last candidate offered appointment to consider the names of 3 General category candidates for remaining 3 vacant posts and one in Scheduled Caste category and the advice was awaited. It is admitted that a fresh recruitment process has started. 80 new posts of Assistant District Attorneys have been advertised. However, 3 vacant posts of General category regarding which advice was sought were not included in these posts advertised. Further action, it is stated in the written statement, shall be taken on receipt of advice from the Commission, which is still awaited. In case, it is decided to fill up the remaining 3 seats of General category, offer of appointment shall be given to the petitioner also. The written statement rests at that. On 15th December, 2015, this Court passed the following order: "CM No.15881 of 2015 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the case is taken up today itself. Main Case Contends that three posts of ADA remain unfilled in the general category and the petitioner is high enough in merit in the waiting list to be offered employment. This is also the position explained in para.9 of the written statement filed by the State of Punjab dated 20.10.2015. The ball is in the court of the Punjab Public Service Commission whose advice has been sought whether the three posts should be filled. The Government can from the wait list re-assure itself that it remains the appointing authority of ADAs and requires no advice from any third agency including the Punjab Public Service Commission which has done its job by forwarding its recommendations to the Government. It is trite law that the Government is not bound by the recommendations of the Public Service Commission but must have the greatest respect attached to its word being a Constitutional body. The departure being only in cases where it is justified before the Court, even then the decision should be taken by the Government itself instead of waiting for the advice of the Commission. In the light of this order, the Government would re-consider its statement in para.9 and inform the Court as to the status of the petitioner and whether she can be appointed as an Additional District Attorney as per her merit. Adjourned to 22.12.2015. To be shown in the urgent list. Mr. Manuja may seek instructions in writing from the Government. A copy of this order be given to Mr. Manuja attested by the Bench Secretary. The case is de-tagged as the issue is different and be listed separately.";