Temporary deputation preference under reorganisation law did not bar direct recruitment or lawful relaxation of qualifications.
Section 84 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 was treated as a temporary arrangement aimed at completing service integration, so the word "mainly" indicated a general preference for deputation rather than an absolute bar on direct recruitment. In the absence of binding recruitment rules, the Chandigarh Administration could prescribe the mode of recruitment and fill the post through direct recruitment via the Union Public Service Commission. The Commission could also relax advertised qualifications where the requisition and notice allowed it, and the selected candidate was found eligible on the stated alternatives. Allegations of bias, mala fides, or denial of equal opportunity were not established.
Issues: (i) Whether the post of Principal, Government Central Crafts Institute for Women, Chandigarh, was a deputation post to be filled only by deputation under the directions issued under Section 84 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and whether direct recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission was invalid. (ii) Whether the Union Public Service Commission had power to relax the essential qualifications and whether the selected candidate lacked the requisite qualifications. (iii) Whether the selection was vitiated by bias or mala fides on the part of the Director, Technical Education, Chandigarh, or by denial of equal opportunity.
Issue (i): Whether the post of Principal, Government Central Crafts Institute for Women, Chandigarh, was a deputation post to be filled only by deputation under the directions issued under Section 84 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and whether direct recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission was invalid.
Analysis: Section 84 was held to be a limited, transitory provision meant to give effect to the reorganisation scheme and to operate only until integration of services was completed. The instructions issued under it were construed in the light of the word "mainly", which indicated a general preference for deputation but not an absolute prohibition against direct recruitment. In the absence of rules framed under Article 309 governing recruitment to the post, the Chandigarh Administration retained executive power to prescribe the mode of recruitment and was not bound to fill the vacancy only by deputation. On the facts, the Administration had also made efforts to secure a deputationist before resorting to direct recruitment.
Conclusion: The post was not confined to deputation and direct recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission was valid; the challenge on this ground fails.
Issue (ii): Whether the Union Public Service Commission had power to relax the essential qualifications and whether the selected candidate lacked the requisite qualifications.
Analysis: No statute or rule having the force of law prescribed qualifications for the post, and the Administration, in consultation with the Commission, had itself laid down the qualifications in the requisition. The advertisement contained a relaxation clause, and the Commission reserved to itself the power to relax qualifications in suitable cases. The selected candidate possessed qualifications falling within the advertised alternatives, and the Commission's action in considering candidates with relaxed requirements was not shown to be outside its powers.
Conclusion: The Commission could validly relax qualifications in the circumstances, and the selected candidate's appointment was not invalid for want of eligibility.
Issue (iii): Whether the selection was vitiated by bias or mala fides on the part of the Director, Technical Education, Chandigarh, or by denial of equal opportunity.
Analysis: The materials did not establish any specific or prima facie case of mala fides or bias. The Director's participation was as an expert to explain the nature of duties, and the record did not show that he influenced the Selection Committee improperly. The allegation of denial of equal opportunity also failed because the advertisement itself contemplated relaxation, and the appellant had applied and competed with full knowledge of that condition.
Conclusion: The selection was not vitiated by bias, mala fides, or denial of equal opportunity.
Final Conclusion: The appointment upheld by the courts below was sustained, and the appellant was not entitled to interfere with the selection process or the resulting appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: Directions issued under Section 84 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 are temporary and limited to the reorganisation scheme; where no binding recruitment rules exist, the competent administration may regulate recruitment, including direct recruitment with permissible relaxation of qualifications, unless mala fides, bias, or legal infirmity is proved.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
