Excessive Court docket quashes appointment of seven BSF males as jail superintendents

Excessive Court docket quashes appointment of seven BSF males as jail superintendents

Tribune Information Service

Chandigarh, Could 18

The appointment of seven BSF deputy commandants as superintendents, central jails, Punjab, has been quashed by the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket after holding that the appointment order was handed in gross violation of the related rule.

Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu of the Excessive Court docket additionally dominated that the choice taken in June 25, 2018, assembly headed by the then Chief Minister was neither an “govt resolution of the state”, nor an modification of the Punjab Prisons State Service (Class-I) Guidelines, 1979. It may quite be termed as an “onslaught towards the rule of legislation”. It was determined within the assembly to refill the vacant posts from the Punjab police and on deputation foundation from the Central Para-Navy forces to reinforce and strengthen the safety of jails.

Justice Sindhu asserted seven out of 9 central jails as on immediately have been headed by the officers from the BSF with none authorized provision to that impact. As such, your complete cadre of superintendents, central jails, had been handed over to “whole strangers”.

The ruling by Justice Sindhu got here on a petition filed towards the State of Punjab and different respondents by Baljit Singh and different petitioners via counsel Gauravjit Singh Patwalia. That they had, amongst different issues, sought the quashing of the impugned order dated October 9, 2020, whereby seven respondents have been appointed as superintendents towards vacant posts on deputation foundation for 3 years.

Justice Sindhu asserted the appointment to the posts was ruled underneath the foundations of 1979, which have been statutory in nature and, thus, binding on all involved, together with the federal government. There was no provision underneath the foundations for appointment to the posts by means of deputation or on switch foundation. As such, the impugned order was handed in gross violation of the rule.

Justice Sindhu additionally noticed all of the petitioners — members of the Punjab Prisons Service, Class-II — have been working with the prisons service in numerous capacities for the final greater than 24 years. Undisputedly, the service was thought of half and parcel of the legal justice system. It could, as such, not be applicable for the court docket to shut its eyes and deny adjudication of the matter solely on the technical plea of locus standi.

“After comparability of each the providers — the prisons service vis-à-vis BSF, there isn’t a resemblance of duties and duties with one another and as such, the put up of deputy commandant can’t be stated analogous to the put up of superintendent, central jail. The petitioners have proven adequate curiosity in the subject material; thus, rightly assailed the legality and validity of the impugned order whereas invoking the jurisdiction of this court docket underneath Article 226 of the Structure. In case the impugned order goes unchecked, it could be travesty of justice,” the Bench added.

Supply hyperlink

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.

%d bloggers like this: