KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J. -- Petitioners are employees of the respondent-Board, serving in Grade-16 and above. It is claimed by them that under Government instructions, 20% of the vacancies in the cadre of Junior Clerks, Drivers, Naib Qasids, Malies, Water Careers and Chaukidars in the Board were reserved for the children of the employees- in BS-1 to 5. According to the petitioners, since such posts were available but were not filled up for lack of eligible children, the Minister of Education at the relevant time, as Controlling Authority, directed that these vacancies he allowed to he filled up by the children of employees in Grade-16 and above. It is stated that afterwards the Board also approved and issued circular dated 15.3.1995 for recruitment. It is claimed that pursuant to the circular, number of applications were received and a final list, Annex "E", of eligible children was prepared. Instead of issuing appointment orders, the matter was deferred. Petitioners again approached the Minister for Education who ordered on 23.10.1997 for issuance of appointment orders. The order of the Minister is Annex "H", Since in spite of the order, the Order, the appointments tiled this Constitutional petition for a declaration:- "that inaction of the respondents for not issuing the appointment letters to the petitioners children may kindly he declared to he illegal , ultra vires....................
2. In the parawise comments the claim is denied. It is 'stated that 208 posts of Junior Clerks were reserved tin children of the employees of the Board in BPS-1 to 5. It is stated that as the petitioners are serving in Grade-16 and above, their children are not eligible for appointment against this quota. Their demand is against the recruitment policy of 208 quota of the vacant posts reserved for the employees working in Grade-I to 5.
3. This petition remained attached with Writ Petition No. 6494/96 in which larger question of the nature of employment in the Board, viz, statutory or otherwise is involved. During hearing none of the learned counsel pointed out difference in facts of this case. This petition can he decided independent of the decision of the larger question which, in any case, is being decided separately.
4. No statutory -instruction has been shown to exist permitting reservation of quota or tilling up the quota reserved for the children of the employees in BPS-1 to 5 by children of the employees of Grade-16 and above. It has also not been shown whether the list (Annex "E") was prepared in accordance with rules and regulations and the same reflects the merits. Additionally no attempt has been made to show that the Minister for Education enjoys the legal authority to pass orders like the one he has done in this case "Please make these appointments and report within fortnight".
5. In Writ Petition No. 6496/96, reliance has been placed on Notification - No. SOR-III-I-6/89, dated 28.2.1989 issued by Governor under Section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, whereby authority has been delegated to the Minister concerned, in respect of posts in BS-I to 5 and PTC Teachers to -relax any of the conditions of service prescribed for recruitment, for reasons to he recorded in writing. On the assumption that the Notification applies to the cases of employment in the statutory bodies like the respondent-Board, Minister in this case has not given any reasons in writing as, to why he was taking the extraordinary step by directing appointments of children of employees of grade-16 and above to the posts reserved for children of employees of grade I to 5.
The order is arbitrary and authoritarian in nature and cannot be countenanced in law and equity.
Ministers and representatives of the people like MNAs and MPAs, are supposed to act for and in aid of law and equity and not in breach and disregard. Of the same. It is painful experience to note repeatedly in number of cases that our worthy representatives have flouted the law just to accommodate their favourites. One can express regret over the state of affairs and pray for improvement in the same. For the purposes of this case it is sufficient to hold that the Notification dated 28.2.1989 does not authorize the Minister to direct making of appointments, as he has done in this case. In refusing to oblige, the respondent-Board has acted lawfully and, if 1 may add, with courage.
6. For the reasons stated above. This petition is completely devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs.