- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sardara Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals arose from a batch of writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Following the High Court’s earlier decision in Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab, the State Government amended Rule 2(a) of the Punjab Revenue Patwari Class III Service Rules, 1963 (“the Rules”) to authorise “other authorities” to recruit Patwaris because the Service Selection Board had not been constituted. A District-level Committee—comprising the Deputy Commissioner (Chairman), the District Revenue Officer, the District Sainik Welfare Officer and the District Social Welfare Officer (Scheduled Caste)—was created for Patiala District. Out of 1,210 candidates called, 821 were interviewed; 189 were selected in order of merit and 146 were ultimately appointed as Patwaris after completing one year’s training. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection process, but the High Court upheld the appointments. The present appeals were brought to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the District-level Selection Committee was validly constituted in conformity with the amended Rules.
- Whether the District Collector could invite fresh applications and the manner in which the notification was issued rendered the selections illegal.
- Whether the Committee’s exclusive reliance on viva-voce (without a written test) vitiated the selection.
- Whether the brevity of the interview process and alleged denial of adequate opportunity to candidates invalidated the selection.
- Whether any failure to give preference to “priority categories” (riot-affected, terrorist-affected, etc.) tainted the appointments.
- Whether the appellants, who had now become over-aged, were entitled to a direction for relaxation of age and appointment.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The Selection Committee was improperly constituted because one member had been transferred and replaced and the Scheduled Caste representation was defective.
- The District Collector lacked authority to invite fresh applications, and the notice posted only on the notice-board (without newspaper publication) was inadequate.
- Priority categories were allegedly ignored, suggesting mala fides in soliciting fresh applications.
- Interviewing 821 candidates in approximately 15 hours rendered the process a “farce” and denied candidates a real opportunity.
- Abandoning the written test earlier conducted by the Service Selection Board and relying solely on oral interviews was illegal.
- Because they had become over-aged during litigation, the appellants sought a direction to relax the age limit and appoint them.
Respondents'/State's Arguments
- The Committee members held office ex officio; the successor District Revenue Officer validly participated, and the Social Welfare Officer belonged to the Scheduled Caste community.
- Inviting applications from priority categories was permissible under paragraph 4 of Government instructions dated 24 April 1986; any procedural irregularity caused no prejudice to the appellants.
- Interviews actually lasted 35 hours over five days (about three minutes per candidate), adequate for a Class III post requiring only Matric/Higher Secondary qualifications.
- The Rules allow recruitment through either written test, viva-voce, or both; opting for viva-voce alone was within discretion.
- Relief of age relaxation would open the flood-gates to numerous similarly situated unsuccessful candidates.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab, W.P. No. 2374 of 1985 (P&H HC) | Directed the State to regularise Patwari appointments within six months, failing which ad-hoc arrangements would lapse. | Provided the backdrop necessitating amendment of Rule 2(a) and the constitution of District-level Committees. |
| Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 | Laid down standards for interview-based selection to Class I services. | Distinguished; the Court held its ratio inapplicable to Class III Patwari posts, which required less interview time. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Composition of Committee: The Court noted that Rule 4(1) read with amended Rule 2(a) empowered the State-authorised “other authority” to recruit Patwaris. Members were nominated by virtue of their offices; therefore, the successor District Revenue Officer could lawfully sit on the Committee. No evidence showed that the Social Welfare Officer was not from the Scheduled Caste community.
Invitation of Applications: Government instructions allowed priority-category candidates to be specially considered. Although newspaper publication would have been preferable, posting notice on the Collector’s notice-board caused no prejudice to the appellants, who had already applied.
Priority Categories Argument: The allegation that no priority-category candidate was selected was factual, not raised before the High Court, and therefore barred from first-time consideration in the Supreme Court.
Duration of Interviews: Respondents demonstrated that interviews spanned 35 hours over five days, averaging three minutes per candidate—adequate for verifying general knowledge and suitability for a Class III Patwari post. Educational qualifications were evident from records and required little probing.
Absence of Written Test: The Rules permitted recruitment through viva-voce alone. Hence, the Committee’s choice of interviews without a written examination was within its statutory discretion.
Age-Relaxation Request: The Court rejected the plea to relax age limits, holding that the appellants had already been fairly considered and that extending such benefit would unjustifiably open similar claims to many others.
Holding and Implications
Holding: APPEALS DISMISSED (no order as to costs).
Consequently, the selections and appointments of 146 Patwaris in Patiala District remain undisturbed, and the appellants receive no further relief. The decision turns on factual validation of the selection process and does not set a new legal precedent beyond reaffirming that statutory rules may permit recruitment through viva-voce alone for Class III posts when discretion is expressly provided.
K. Ramaswamy, J.— Leave granted in special leave petitions and heard along with the appeals.
2. Common questions of facts and law arise in the appeals and hence are disposed of by a common judgment. It is not necessary to restate the facts preceding the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab W.P No. 2374 of 1985. Suffice to state that the High Court in the said judgment, while allowing the ad hoc appointments made by the Government of Punjab to the posts of Patwaris under the Punjab Revenue Patwari Class III Service Rules, 1963, for short ‘the Rules’ to continue for six months, directed the State Government to make regular appointments in accordance with the Rules within the said period from the date of the judgment or else the ad hoc arrangement would lapse. Pursuant thereto, since the Service Selection Board, Punjab was not constituted, the Government of Punjab by a Notification dated August 26, 1986 amended Rule 2(a) and empowered the State Government to authorise “other authorities” to make recruitment to the service. Accordingly the Government constituted a committee for each district, by proceeding dated May 27, 1986 to make selection. For the District Committee of Patiala, the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala was the Chairman, the District Revenue Officer, Patiala, District Sainik Welfare Officer and District Social Welfare Officer (Scheduled Caste) were nominated as members of the Committee. The pending names of the candidates before the S.S Board were sent to the Committee for selection. The District Collector invited applications from special categories, namely, children affected by the riots at Delhi, terrorist affected families in Punjab, etc. and issued call letters to 1210 candidates for interview. By the date of the interview Shri Piara Singh, the District Revenue Officer was transferred and his successor had participated in the selection. Out of 821 candidates appearing for interview, 189 candidates were selected; the list was prepared in their order of merit; and the District Collector appointed 146 candidates and sent them for Patwari training and on their completion of it in a period of one year, they were appointed as Patwaris on probation. The selections were challenged by unsuccessful candidates in several writ petitions and by judgment dated February 28, 1989, the High Court dismissed the letters patent appeal and the writ petitions. On leave under Article 136, the appeals arise from that batch.
3. The first contention of the appellants that the Committee was not properly constituted and, therefore, the selection of the candidates is invalid has no force. Under Rule 4(1) of the Rules, as per amended Rule 2(a) the authority authorised by the government is entitled to make recruitment to the service of Patwaris. The Committee constituted consists of Deputy Commissioner as Chairman, the District Revenue Officer, Patiala, District Sainik Welfare Officer and District Social Welfare Officer (SC) as members. Undoubtedly, at the time when the Committee was constituted, Piara Singh was the District Revenue Officer. On his transfer, his successor had participated in the selection. We have seen the notification. The District Revenue Officer, Patiala was nominated in official capacity. Therefore, the member having been nominated by virtue of his office, the incumbent in office was, therefore, entitled to participate in the selection of the candidates. It is true that the representation of the scheduled castes need be by an officer belonging to scheduled caste. The District Social Welfare Officer (Scheduled Caste) as required should be an officer belonging to the members of the scheduled caste. It is not uncommon that the Social Welfare Officer may be an officer other than one from the scheduled castes. But here in this case it is not the contention that the District Social Welfare Officer was not a scheduled caste officer representing the scheduled castes. Therefore, we find that the Committee constituted was properly composed of the representatives enumerated therein. The composition of the Committee and the selection of the candidates, therefore, is legal and valid.
4. It is next contended that the District Collector was not competent to invite applications afresh and selection of the candidates from out of those applicants is illegal. It is true that he is bound by the instructions issued by the government in Annexure ‘D’ wherein it was stated that since the number of applicants are quite large in number, it would not be necessary to solicit candidates afresh from Employment Exchange or through public advertisement. But in paragraph 4 therein it was stated that priority categories listed in the proceeding dated April 24, 1986 will have to be given precedence over candidates from all other sources other than the regularisation of the existing ad hoc Patwaris. It had given room to the District Collector to invite applications from those categories. Though it was a mistaken compliance on wrong impression, the selection of the candidates, so applying, does not become illegal. It was next contended that instead of calling the applications by publication in the newspapers, only notice was put on the notice board of the Collector's office and some candidates submitted their applications in pursuance thereof and that is not a proper notification. Though we find that the procedure, adopted by the Collector, in inviting applications is not commendable, but the grievance would be voiced only by the persons who did not have the opportunity to make applications within the prescribed period. But no such grievance could be raised by persons like the appellants. Under those circumstances, the procedure adopted, though irregular, does not vitiate the selection of candidates, ultimately made by the Committee.
5. It is next sought to raise a contention that none of the candidates from the priority categories were selected and this was used only as a lever to invite applications from the candidates other than those, some of which were ultimately selected and it is irregular. We find no substance in it. That apart it is a factual position to be investigated and that no such plea was raised nor argued in the High Court. Therefore, we cannot permit the appellants to raise this contention for the first time in this Court.
6. It is next contended that there was no proper opportunity given to the appellants in the interview. Only 15 hours were spent to interview 821 candidates and the selection, therefore, is a farce. This contention also was not raised before the High Court, but raised in these appeals for the first time. In the counter filed in this Court, it was refuted. It was stated that they had spent 35 hours in total at the rate of 7 hours per day. That means they spent 5 days in selecting the candidates. The selection is for the Patwaris in the Class III service. The ratio in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417, 1985 Supp 1 SCR 657 has no application to the facts in this case. Therein the selection was to the Class I service of the State service and sufficient time was required to interview each candidate. In this case, on calculation, we found that on an average three minutes were spent for each candidate for selection. Rule 7 of the Rules provides the qualifications, namely, pass in the Matriculation or Higher Secondary Examination; knowledge in Hindi and Punjabi up to the Middle Standard and good knowledge of rural economy and culture. The educational qualifications are apparent from record and need no interview in this regard. It could be seen that candidates normally hailing from rural backgrounds had presumptively good knowledge of rural economy and culture. Therefore, there is no need for special emphasis to ascertain their knowledge of the rural economy or culture. Under those circumstances much time need not be spent on each candidate for selection except asking some questions on general knowledge and aptitude for work as Patwari etc.
7. It is then contended that the written test, conducted by the previous Service Selection Board, was abandoned and only oral interviews were conducted. The selection, therefore, is illegal. Normally it may be desirable to conduct written test and in particular of handwriting which is vital for a Patwari whose primary duty is to record clearly entries in revenue records followed by oral interview. The Rules do not mandate to have both. Options were given either to conduct written test or viva voce or both. In this case the Committee adopted (sic opted) for viva voce as a method to select the candidates which cannot be said to be illegal.
8. It is next contended that the appellants have now become overaged and that they are 22 in all. Therefore, directions may be given to the government to relax their age qualification and give appointments to them. We find no justification to give such a direction. Admittedly, the appellants have taken the chance for selection and they were not selected on the basis of comparative merits. Therefore, merely because appellants are carrying on the litigation, there cannot be any justification to give direction to the government to consider their cases by relaxing the age qualification for appointment as Patwari. It is not in dispute that hundreds of candidates who could not be selected would in that event seek similar relief. Under these circumstances we do not find any cause to add to the selection and appointment of the candidates as Patwaris. The High Court, though for different reasons, has rightly dismissed the writ petitions. The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but without costs.
Alert