Civil post not a position of privilege, but meant to serve public, says High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 13

In a significant order liable to change the way the grievances of the public are addressed, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reminded the government officers and civil servants that an appointment to a civil post is not a position of privilege, rather a means to serve the public.

The assertion by Justice Kshetarpal came on a petition filed against the state of Punjab and other respondents by Ankit through counsel HC Arora and Sunaina. The Bench, during the course of hearing, observed the petitioner was directly recruited as a mathematics master in 2021.

Reasonable expectation

Government officers and civil servants, who hold decision-making powers, are expected to address the grievances of the people, who face unfortunate and unjust circumstances. — Justice Anil Kshetarpal

In order to progress in life, he applied for the post of the Assistant Professor (Colleges) pursuant to a government recruitment notice issued on October 19, 2021, after getting permission from the competent authority.

The petitioner submitted his resignation letter from the master’s position after he was issued an appointment letter on December 3, 2021. But the issuance of the letter to the Assistant Professor’s post was stayed following an interim order passed by a court.

He then requested for withdrawal of the resignation letter vide communication dated December 10, 2021.

Since then, he had been running from pillar to post for the withdrawal of his resignation letter.

The Bench observed that the petitioner applied for the post pursuant to the recruitment notice issued by the Punjab Government. Moreover, it was evident that the petitioner’s request for the withdrawal of his resignation was kept pending for nearly one-and-a-half years. Considering the facts, the Bench asked the Director, Public Instruction (Secondary Education) to appear before the court and clarify his conduct.

As the matter came up for resumed hearing, Director Tejdeep Singh Saini produced a copy of the order dated May 5 recalling the impugned order. Arora, in turn, submitted that the writ petition had been rendered infructuous in view of the subsequent development.

Before disposing of the case, Justice Kshetarpal asserted that the court felt compelled to make certain observations.

“It is well known that only a fortunate few have the opportunity to serve the state as an employee. Among those few, some have the privilege to serve the public….The government officers and civil servants, who hold the decision-making powers, are expected to address the grievances of the people, who face unfortunate and unjust circumstances. Without this intent, cases like the present one will continue to come before the courts.”