Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarlok Rai vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 4 July, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082420
CWP-6515-2024 1
110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-6515-2024
Date of Decision: 04-07-2024
Tarlok Rai ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab And ors. ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:- Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. TPS Chawla, Sr. DAG Punjab.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate with
Ms. Tanya Sehgal, Advocate,
Ms. Priya Kaushik, Advocate and
Mr. Preetleen Kaur, Advocates
for respondent No.25.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
In the present petition, the grievance raised by the petitioner is that
respondent Nos.4 to 25 have wrongly been appointed on deputation to the post of
Assistant Transport Officer in the office of Transport Department, Government of
Punjab. The only argument which has been raised by the petitioner is that the
petitioner competed for the post in question but could not be selected and the
respondent Nos.4 to 25, who have been selected were not working to an equivalent
post to that of Assistant Transport Officer and therefore, they could not have been
appointed by way of deputation.
Notice of motion.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082420
Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Sr. DAG Punjab appears and accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate appears on behalf
of respondent No.25.
Learned State counsel submits that no reply is needed keeping in view
certain facts which have already been emerged as of now. He submits that
grievance of the petitioner in the present petition has also been raised in case
bearing CWP No. 28240 of 2023 titled as "Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab"
wherein, the similar prayer was made. Learned counsel submits that though interim
order was granted initially but the same was vacated, which order was challenged
in LPA No.789 of 2024.
Learned State counsel further submits that the Division Bench of this
Court, keeping in view the observation made in the order dated 22.03.2024,
approved methods of selection for appointing the already serving employees on
deputation and keeping in view the reasons given, the claim of the petitioner as
raised in the present petition, does not survive.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent also
submits the same submissions.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the
records of the case with their able assistance.
Keeping in view the facts which have already been noticed
hereinbefore, the dispute regarding same order by which the private respondents
have been appointed on the post of Assistant Transport Officer on deputation, has
been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.789 of 2024. The
relevant observations of the Division Bench are as under:-
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082420
"5. The stand of the State is very clear that they are having
difficulties in filling up the posts due to which the said procedure has
been resorted to. Rather, the specific plea has been taken that filling
up the posts by way of deputation would amount to filling the posts
by way of transfer. Reference is made to Rule 10.21 of Chapter 10 of
the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Part 1 (Vol-1) that the term
'deputation' covers only appointment made by transfer on temporary
basis. Rule 5 of the Punjab, Department of Transport (Non-
Commercial Wing) (Class III), Service Rules, 2000 provides that if
any suitable candidate is available for appointment to the service by
promotion or by direct appointment, the appointment to the service
may be made by transfer of a person holding an analogous post
under the State Government or the Government of India.
6. Reliance has also been placed to the order dated
08.12.2023 (Annexure P-3) whereby the 27 persons were selected as
Assistant Transport Officer wherein the term "period of deputation'
had been specified that the Government reserves the right to reduce
or extend the time of deputation at the time of absorbing them or if
work of the said official is not found satisfactory or unsatisfactory in
the department. Thus, it is clear that it is for the exigency of the
services and in the administration of justice, the process had to be
resorted to. It has also been averred that the restructuring of the
Transport Department is being done and Rules are pending
consideration before the Personnel/Finance Department and it is in
such circumstances, resort has been taken to fill up the said posts by
way of deputation.
7. The appellant himself is an applicant and for reasons best
known to his department, his application apparently has not been
forwarded. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion
that the appellant can have no grouse against the vacation of the
order of stay as 10 posts are still vacant. It is thus open to him also
to press for his application to be forwarded for necessary action, if
he so desires which was not the case before the Learned Single
Judge. Even otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that the
appeal itself is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in since his interests have not been affected in any manner.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082420
8. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the present
appeal is dismissed in limine.
From the above reproduction it would show that the Division Bench of
this Court has already upheld the order by which the private respondents have been
appointed on deputation. Keeping in view the observations of the Division Bench,
the claim being raised by the petitioner in the present petition cannot be allowed
and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
04.07.2024
Sapna Goyal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
