I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner was employed as a clerk in the office of the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, with effect from April 25, 1971. Later, in response to a circular Annexure P/2 from the Commissioner, Ferozepore Division, Ferozepur, to all Heads of Departments in the State of Punjab and the Commissioners, Patiala and Jullundur Divisions, for recruitment to two posts of Assistants from amongst Scheduled Castes Candidates, he applied through proper channel and was later appointed as such vide order dated Nov. 4, 1977 (Annexure P.l). Still later, the Commissioner, Ferozepore Division, Ferozepur, vide the impugned order dated July 18, 1979, (Annexure P/3) reverted him back to the post of a Clerk in his parent department i.e. Labour Department with immediate effect. The reason stated for this reversion was that on a representation from certain officials against this appointment, he had sought clarification from the Government which was to the following effect: "There is no provision in the Punjab Commissioner's office (State Service Class III) Rules, 1976, for appointment to the post of an Assistant in a Commissioner's office by transfer of an official from any other office/department. Not withstanding the provisions of Rule 19 ibid enabling the Government to relax the provisions of the aforesaid rules, according to the Government policy, no relaxation can be made so as to nullify the provisions of rules totally. The appointment of Shri Harbhajan Malian as Assistant in the Commissioner's office, Ferozepure, by transfer from other office is, therefore, not tenable. He can be reverted to his present Department, where his lien may still be in tact, or it can be revived."
(2.) On receipt of this advice from the Government, he, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, passed the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Agnihotri, now impugns it on the ground that firstly this order appears to have been passed on a misconception that the petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant in the office of the Commissioner by way of transfer and secondly the petitioner having lost his lien in the parent department i.e. Labour Department, he could not be sent back to that department. Besides controverting the above-noted twin stand of Mr. Agnihotri, it is pleaded on behalf of the respondents, i.e. the Commissioner and the State Government that the very appointment of the petitioner was not in pursuance of the circular letter Annexure P/2 as two vacancies referred to in that circular which were reserved for Scheduled Castes candidates only were already filled up on Aug. 16, 1977 and Sept. 15, 1977 i.e. prior to the appointment of the petitioner as such vide Annexure P/1 dated Nov. 4, 1977. Their further plea is that the petitioner in fact was appointed against a general vacancy and thus the very appointment of the petitioner was void abinito. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I find merit in the stand taken by the respondents.
(3.) Mr.Agnihotri may be right in contending that the text and the tenor of Annexure P/1 i.e. appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant does not indicate that it was an appointment by way of transfer, rather, as is contended by the learned counsel, it appears to be an appointment by way of a direct recruitment, yet 1 find that this by itself does not help the petitioner as he was not appointed against the reserved vacancy, as indicated in the circular letter Annexure P.2. It is not controverted by the petitioner that as a result of this circular the said two reserved vacancies meant for Scheduled Castes people had already been filled up on Aug. 16, 1977 and Sept. 15, 1977, and by the time the petitioner was appointed vide Annexure P.l, no such vacancy was available. It is thus patent that the petitioner could not be appointed as an Assistant on Nov. 4. 1977, in response to circular Annexure P.2. He obviously had to go back to his original post.;