Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-State to consider the claim of the petitioners on the posts of Canal Patwaris advertised through public notice dated 10.09.2016 as they have already been selected in pursuance of earlier Advertisement dated 15.05.1995.
(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that the petitioners applied for the posts of Canal Patwaris in pursuant to advertisement dated 15.05.1995. They were selected on the basis of Screening Test conducted on 04.08.1996, result of which was declared on 23.12.1996. However, petitioners could not be appointed as 'Model Code of Conduct' was imposed due to assembly elections. They made representations and ultimately, filed CWP No.6395 of 1997, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.05.1997 directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the claim of the petitioners. Subsequently, it was conveyed to the petitioners that the Canal Patwaris have become surplus as the Punjab Government has decided to supply free water and electricity to the farmers. Thereafter, the petitioners again filed CWP No.13208 of 2003, which was dismissed on 28.04.2009. It was held in the said judgment that the selection process was withdrawn on the basis of financial crises and the petitioners were not having any indefeasible right of appointment. Subsequently, vide public notice dated 10.09.2016, 857 posts of Canal Patwaris have been advertised. The petitioners are having a preferential right over the said posts as earlier they were selected but were not appointed. It is also mentioned that the posts have been advertised but there is an amendment in the service Rules and the minimum eligibility condition has been raised from Matric to Graduation.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the stand of the respondent-State is contradictory as earlier it was mentioned that the Model Code of Conduct was imposed but subsequently it was because of free supply of electricity and water by the State Government and there was no requirement of Canal Patwaris. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent-State has played hide and seek as without considering the case of the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates, the posts of Canal Patwaris have been advertised by changing the eligibility criteria. The petitioners had participated in the selection process and they were entitled to be considered against the posts advertised subsequently. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondent- State is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as they have been denied their right of employment without affording any sufficient reason and as such, they are entitled to be considered for appointment against the posts, which have been subsequently advertised on 10.09.2016.;