G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 748 and 1586 of 1987, Civil Writ Petitions No. 3667, 7209, 7607 and 8074 of 1987 as common questions of fact and law are involved in them.
(2.) WE have alluded to the facts as given in Civil Writ Petition No. P64 of 1987 in which Letters Patent Appeal No. 748 of 1987 has been filed. The Respondent - -State of Punjab issued an advertisement which was published in the daily 'Indian Express' dated October 15, 1983, wherein 421 vacancies for Patwari candidates were advertised. A number of persons who were eligible for appointment applied for being selected as Patwari candidate. Regular appointments in response to that advertisement could not be made due to non -functioning of the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short 'the Board') ad hoc appointments to the posts of patwaris were made. This ad hoc recruitment was challenged in CWP No. 2374 of 1985 Gurjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, and the same was set aside. This Court issued the following directions: In the light of the above discussion, while not quashing the appointments of the persons who have been appointed in place of the Petitioners on ad hoc basis, I direct the State Government to make appointments of Patwaris throughout the State on regular basis in accordance with the Rules within a period of six months from today. It is needless for me to say that to implement this direction the State Government would be obliged to constitute the Subordinate Services Selection Board at the earliest. I do not choose to disturb or upset the ad hoc arrangement that has been resorted to till the expiry of the said period of six months. There is no dispute that these appointments are regulated by the Punjab Revenue Patwaris Class III Service Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules'). Vide notification dated August 26, 1986, the State of Punjab amended the 1966 Rules and in Rule 2, Clause (a) to the Rules, the following clause was substituted: 2. (a): 'Board' means the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab or any other authority authorised by the Government to make recruitment to the Service. The State of Punjab did not constitute the Board. Departmental Selection Committees were constituted in each district for making the selection. These Committees called for interview the candidates who had applied for the post of Patwari and also those who were registered with the Employment Exchange. The writ Petitioners and the selected candidates who have been arranged as Respondents in the writ petitions were called for the interview Selection of the selected candidates was assailed on the ground that the selection was wholly arbitrary as it was made on the basis of interview alone, no criterion was adopted while making the selection, the marks allotted for the interview were not subdivided under various heads, such as personality, educational qualifications, extra -curricular activities and aptitudes. The selection was made on district -wise basis. The selection could only be made by the Board and not by the Departmental Selection Committees. The State of Punjab controverted the pleas of the writ -Petitioners and, inter alia, pleaded that the work relating to recruitment of Class III and Class IV employees was entrusted to the Departmental Selection Committees by amending the statutory Rules and this was done in view of the mandate issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 2374 of 1985. The Departmental Selection Committee made selection strictly in accordance with the Rules governing the services. The criteria prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules was also kept in view. These Committees interviewed the candidates on different dates. The Petitioners levelled allegations of mala fides against the Chairman of the Selection Committee for inviting those candidates for interview, who had not submitted their applications in response to the original advertisement and that the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, in his D.O letter No. 17/85/85 -CH -III/14026, dated September 16, 1986, has specifically observed that the Departmental Selection Committee should not solicit fresh candidates from the Employment Exchange or through public advertisement since the number of the applications pending with the Board were quite large. The direction was not adhered to. The selection list prepared by the Selection Committee was also assailed on the ground that the candidates mentioned at Sr. Nos. 188 and 189 were subsequently added by making changes in the final selection list. The constitution of the Selection Committee was also challenged on the ground that the criterion of the constitution of the Selection Committee was provided in Circular No. 12/30/86 -1 GE/5139, dated 15th April, 1980. In the circular letter, it was specifically provided that Departmental Selection Committee at district level will consist of four members including its Chairman and three members of an appropriate level including one belonging to Scheduled Castes and Ex -Serviceman, both Government officials. Initially, it consisted of Shri S, K. Sinha, Collector, Patiala, as Chairman, Piara Singh, District Revenue Officer (member), District Sainik Welfare Officer (member) and District Social Welfare Officer (member). The Chairman of its own appointed Shri Sant Singh as member in place of Shri Piara Singh, who was originally nominated as a member. The allegations were controverted by the Collector. In his written statement, he submitted that the interview letters were issued to 1211 candidates, out of which 821 candidates appeared for interview before the Departmental Selection Committee and 189 candidates were selected. The re -constitution of the Committee was necessitated because Piara Singh, who was working as the District Revenue Officer and was the member of the Committee was transferred as Land Acquisition Collector and his successor who joined on the post of the District Revenue Officer, Patiala, automatically became the member of the Committee. The members constituting the Committees were by virtue of their office. Before we advert to the basic proposition canvassed at the Bar, we would like to deal with some objections raised in the replication by the writ -Petitioners in C.W.P. No. 7209 of 1987. It was pleaded therein that no appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates since the despatch register does not indicate the issuance of such letters, the selection list was tampered with and that the selection list contained the names of 190 candidates instead of 189 as is alleged to have been selected and also that the candidates belonging to other districts were considered and selected by the Departmental Selection Committee constituted for District Patiala. These objections are not tenable. No fresh pleas can be taken in the replication because the State has no opportunity to controvert. If any new fact was to be pleaded, the same ought to have been done by seeking amendment of the writ petition However, for our satisfaction, we summoned the original record and found that only 189 candidates were selected. It is absolutely wrong that the selection list contained the names of 190 candidates as alleged and there was no addition made in the final selection list. The appointment letters were correctly issued to the selected candidates. There is no provision in the Rules that the candidates belonging to other districts could not be considered for selection by the Departmental Selection Committee constituted for district Patiala. The Collector in his written statement has categorically stated that there was no direction from the State Government that the selection of Patwari candidates was to be made only from the original Applicants who had submitted applications to the Board pursuant to the advertisement referred to above. In order to give opportunity to the deserving candidates belonging to the families of persons killed in terrorist action in the State, or members of the families who lost their bread -earners in riots in Delhi and other places in India between October 31, 1984 to November 7, 1984, surplus employees/disabled ex -Servicemen, members of the families of deceased Government employees, members of the families of the Defence Service Personnel killed or severely disabled/physically handicapped persons were permitted to submit their applications. Three hundred sixty -two candidates belonging to these categories submitted their applications which were considered along with the applications received from the Board. (We do not find that the Departmental Selection Committee travelled beyond its jurisdiction in inviting applications from the categories of persons referred to above. In fact, they acted very fairly and afforded an opportunity to the deserving candidates and permitted them to compete along with other candidates.)
(3.) THE conduct of the writ petitions in Civil Writ Petition No. 7209 ox 1987 deserves to be condemned. They made reckless allegations against the Chairman of the Selection Committee. The allegations of mala fide are often more easily made than proved. In the instant case, we have found that the writ petitions attributed motives to the Selection Committee which were wholly without any basis. They made fishing enquiries by getting the record summoned and after examining it, drawing their inferences which was irreducible.;