Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1534
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Sukhpreet Singh Sidhu And Others - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 15411 of 2020
Decided On : 27-10-2020
D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, Kannan Malik, Advocate, Satya Pal Jain, Advocate, Namit Kumar, Advocate, Alankrit Bhardwaj, Advocate, Alka Chatrath, Advocate, Anu Chatrath, Advocate, Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, Shekhar Verma, Advocate, Kamaldeep Singh, Advocate, Gurminder Singh, Advocate, Harpirya Khaneka, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointments of the private respondents were not beyond cadre strength or beyond the advertised posts, and the private respondents had been given further benefits after 4, 9, and 14 years of substantive service.
Headnote:
Promotion - Indian Administrative Service - Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 - The court discussed the promotion of members of Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) to Indian Administrative Service (Punjab Cadre) and the quashing of the Select List to the extent that certain names were recommended for promotion despite being ineligible. The court analyzed the appointments, re-conduct examinations, and the benefit of past service granted to the petitioners. The court also considered the eligibility of the petitioners and private respondents for promotion to IAS Cadre, and the application of the relevant rules and regulations. The court found the petition to be devoid of merits and dismissed it.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought writs for the issuance of appropriate orders directing the placement of Select Lists for the years 2018 and 2019 for promotion of members of Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) to Indian Administrative Service (Punjab Cadre) and quashing the Select List to the extent that certain names were recommended for promotion. The petitioners also sought to declare the services rendered by certain respondents as non est for the purpose of promotion to IAS Cadre.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were allowed to join the posts in 2014 without continuity in service and were given the benefit of only 2 years of past service. The court concluded that the appointments of the private respondents were not beyond cadre strength or beyond the advertised posts. The court also noted that the private respondents had been given further benefits after 4, 9, and 14 years of substantive service.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility of the petitioners and private respondents for promotion to IAS Cadre, the application of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, and the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and the challenge to the appointments and seniority positions of the private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were not reinstated in the service with all past benefits and that the appointments of the private respondents were not beyond cadre strength or beyond the advertised posts. The court also noted that the private respondents had been given further benefits after 4, 9, and 14 years of substantive service.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be devoid of merits and was accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - The case was taken up for hearing through video conferencing. Presence of Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/UPSC could not be recorded in the previous order dated 14.10.2020 due to some oversight. This Court has acknowledged her presence for respondent No.2/UPSC throughout the proceedings of the case.
2. Petitioners have preferred this writ petition for the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents No.1 to 4 to place on record the Select Lists for the years 2018 and 2019 prepared for promotion of the members of Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) to Indian Administrative Service (Punjab Cadre) and also for quashing of the Select List to the extent that the names of respondents No.5 to 24 have been recommended by respondent No.4 for promotion despite the fact that respondents No.5 to 24 are ineligible for promotion to IAS Cadre for want of substantive appointment/service against Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) posts as required under the provisions of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. Petitioners have also prayed for declaring the services rendered by respondents No.5 to 24 in Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) from their initial appointment to be non est for the purpose of promotion to IAS Cadre in view of the fact that their appointments were not against substantive vacant posts as they had been appointed in excess of total vacant posts as advertised in the year 1998 and they are beyond the cadre strength.
3. Notice of motion was issued on 25.09.2020 by passing the following order:-
"The case has been taken up for hearing through video-conferencing.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that 28 posts of PCS (Executive Branch) were advertised in the year 1998. Petitioners along with others were appointed in the year 1999. Services of the petitioners were terminated on account of the scam known as Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu's scam in Punjab Public Service Commission. In place of the petitioners, respondents No.5 to 24 were appointed by reconducting the examination in the year 2003. However, their appointments were subject to the decisions in the pending writ petitions in the High Court and SLPs in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Litigation in respect of termination of the services of the petitioners and others went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same has been decided in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners have been re-instated in service. The appointments of respondents No.5 to 24 are in excess of number of advertised posts and therefore, they are beyond the cadre strength. Their service cannot be termed as substantive service for the purpose of promotion to the IAS Cadre. The aforesaid respondents have no requisite experience of 8 years of substantive service in PCS (Executive Branch) and they cannot be recommended by the respondent -Committee for promotion to IAS Cadre.
Notice of motion for 8.10.2020.
Notice Re; stay as well.
At this stage, Mr.Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Mr.Namit Kumar, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
Ms.Monica Chibbar, Sr.DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3 Respondents No.2 and 4 be served through dasti process as well as through electronic mechanism.
Respondent Nos. 5 to 24 be served through the office of Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Sector 1, Chandigarh."
4. Thereafter vide order dated 08.10.2020 passed by this Court, it was ordered that process of promotions to the IAS Cadre may not be finalized till the next date of hearing.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that in February, 1998 an advertisement was issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission for recruitment against 28 vacancies in PCS (Executive
