Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) The Punjab Government sent a requisition to the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana (for short "the University") on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture and Department of Water & Soil Conservation, Punjab authorizing the University make the selection by issuing public advertisement to fill up 11 categories of posts in the three departments and accordingly send its recommendations to the Government by way of merit list of candidates. A number of vacancies were advertised, including that of Agriculture Sub Inspectors (for short "ASI") in the Department of Agriculture, Punjab numbering 274 posts and also the posts with the same designation i.e. ASI in the Department of Soil and Water Conservation mentioned at Sr. Nos. 7 and 9 of the advertisement published in the daily newspaper on 29th October, 2011. The pay scales of both the posts were the same i.e. Rs. 5910 -20200+GP Rs. 2400. 25 vacancies of ASIs were advertised in the Department of Soil and Water Conservation.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners states at the bar that pages 22 to 32 of the paper -book which have been attested as true copy by the Advocate are none other than the documents downloaded from the Website of the University i.e. www.pau.edu mentioned at page 19 of the advertisement (Annex.P -1) informing candidates that the website could be visited for details regarding qualifications, experience, category wise vacancies, application form fee and how to apply and the terms and conditions of the recruitment. There is no difference in the pay scale, grade pay or essential qualifications for both the posts in the recruitment process as advertised. While applying for more than one post, separate application form was required to be submitted for each post.
(3.) The case stated in point, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that petitioner No. 3 applied for both the posts and was successful in the competition. He was offered appointments by separate letters for both posts issued by the Department of Agriculture, Punjab and by the Department of Soil and Water Conservation, Punjab. He accepted the offer in the Department of Soil and Water Conservation, Punjab and joined service while the remaining 16 petitioners were appointed to the Department of Soil and Water Conservation, Punjab. It is not disputed that two separate lists were prepared by the University of each of the posts and the recommendations of the University were forwarded to the Government for appointments. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to state whether petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 and onwards were selected on merit in one or two lists, but the question that remains at large is that after the appointments were made, all of them were placed in pay scales/Grade Pay lower than those granted to ASIs in the Department of Agriculture, creating the heartburn. The terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement make out no visible difference in pay scales, grade pay or essential qualifications which were identical. It is also difficult to understand how to extrapolate candidates from a combined list drawn in the recruitment process on merit including 274 vacancies of ASIs advertised in the Department of Agriculture, Punjab and 25 vacancies of ASIs in the Department of Soil and Water Conservation, Punjab. It also remains a mystery as to how the University selected on merit 399 candidates [274+25] for the two posts unless the candidates were restricted to their options exercised for either or both the posts as they may have applied for either one or both the posts. Even then it would be difficult to determine inter -se merit in such a complicated advertisement simultaneously conducted in two departments under the administrative control of the same administrative department comprising three services under the overall administrative control of the Financial Commissioner (Development) and Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture, Punjab. It was only after the petitioners joined services and were paid their salaries that they learnt that they were in receipt of pay less than their counter -part ASIs [at Sr. No. 7 in the public notice] in the Department of Agriculture, Punjab, although the pay scales advertised for both the posts were identical. The petitioners claim that their salary should be stepped at par with their counter -parts in the Agriculture Department there being no reasonable classification between the two posts carrying the same terms and conditions. Even though the ASIs in the Agriculture Department were to be recruited in the pay scale of Rs. 5910 -20200 + GP Rs. 2400, they were given the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800 in their appointment letters for which reason ASIs in the Department of Agriculture became entitled to higher pay though they participated in the same recruitment process. There was no visible difference between the two posts except for the number of advertised vacancies.;