Sonia & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2002 (Annexure P12) passed by the Lokpal, Punjab which has been accepted and notified by the State Government vide notification dated 19.11.2008 and 13.01.2010 (Annexures P13 & P15, respectively) whereby the Lokpal’s recommendations to review the recruitment of Science Mistresses were accepted and a public notice dated 13.02.2010 has been issued inviting objections. The petitioners are the appointed candidates namely, Science, Mistresses. (2). The State Government has filed its reply/affidavit explaining that in view of the recommendations made by the Lokpal, the authorities were left with a little choice but to notify the recommendations and direct an enquiry into the selection of Science Mistresses. CWP No.3891 of 2010.doc - 2 - (3).

The question as to whether the Lokpal in his purported exercise of the powers under the Lokpal Act, 1996 (in short, the Act’) can entertain the complaints in respect of the entrance test or the inter se placement in the merit list by a recruitment agency has been gone into by a Division Bench of this Court in Sukhdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP No.1224 of 2008) decided on 09.09.2008 wherein after referring to Section 2(k) of the Punjab Lokpal Act, 1996, the Bench held as follows:- “Under Section 9 of the Act, the Lokpal may enquire into any matter involved in, or arising from, or connected with any allegation of misconduct against public man made in a complaint under the Act. Under Section 10 of the Act, such inquiry can be made against a public man, within 5 years from the date of the occurrence of the misconduct. The public man has been defined under Section 2(k) of the Act. The said definition reads as under:- “2(k) “Public man” means a person who holds or has held the office of- (i) A Minister; 2 CWP No.3891 of 2010.doc - 3 - (ii) a member of Legislative Assembly of the State; (iii) the Chairman and a Member of Board constituted by or under the State or Central Act or otherwise; (iv) The Chairman of any Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government or any company which is subsidiary of a company in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government; and (v) the Chairman and Member of any non statutory Committee nominated by the State Government.” Shri Baldev Raj, member of the Committee is a public servant as he was working as Deputy Director (Establishment), Office of Director Public Instructions (Elementary Education) Punjab, and not as a public man as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act.

Therefore, the Lokpal could not take cognizance of the complaint submitted by the petitioner. There is no allegation of 3 CWP No.3891 of 2010.doc - 4 - any misconduct, as defined under Section 3 of the Act against any public man. Therefore, the present writ petition, seeking implementation of recommendations of the Lokpal, is not maintainable as such recommendations are without any jurisdiction.” (4). In Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab & Anr., (CWP No.7155 of 2010) decided on 22.04.2010 this Court, while upholding the action of the State Government in refusing to implement the recommendations made by the Lokpal for re- determination of inter se merit of the selected candidates, held as follows:- “In my considered view, the State Government has rightly observed that the exercise undertaken by the learned Lokpal, Punjab causing re-determination of the inter-se merit of the candidates who competed for selection before a recruiting agency, does not fall within the purview and ambit of the Act, creating the office of learned Lokpal.

In these circumstances, this Court cannot issue a mandamus to implement the recommendations made by the learned Lokpal, Punjab.” (5). The exercise undertaken by the learned Lokpal in the present case also exceeds and is beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act. 4 CWP No.3891 of 2010.doc - 5 - (6). The impugned report dated 21.05.2002 (Annexure P12) therefore cannot sustain and is hereby quashed. As a corollary, the notifications issued in pursuance to the report (Annexure P12) are also bound to fall flat. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti.

16.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 5