HC quashes appointment of BSF officers as jail supdts in Punjab

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has quashed the Punjab government’s decision of October 2020 for appointment of Border Security Force (BSF) officers as jail superintendents in central jails of the state.

The HC bench of justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu noted that out of nine central jails, seven are being headed by officers from the BSF without there being any legal provision for it. “…the entire cadre of superintendent, central jails, has been handed over to total strangers,” it held while quashing the October 2020 appointments by the then Congress government.

These appointments, made on deputation basis for three years, were challenged by Baljit Singh and three others. The petitioners were members of Punjab Prisons Service, and prior to these deputations were holding charges as jail superintendents. They were from the deputy superintendent grade-i, which is one of the feeder cadres for the promotion to the post of superintendent, central jail, as per Punjab Prisons State Service (Class-1) Rules 1979.

The petitioners had argued that none of the appointees on deputation were having requisite experience. The main objective of the prisons service is rehabilitation and reformation of the prisoners, whereas the basic purpose of raising the BSF is to secure the international border of the country and to prevent transborder crime, and thus, there is no similarity of duties and responsibilities, it was argued.

The court observed that none of the BSF officers concerned had been a member of the Punjab Prison Services and had no experience as jail superintendent even for a day, and could not have been considered for appointment on deputation basis.

The court pointed out that while the department had made a request for five posts, later, seven were appointed. “One thing is clear that the officer concerned did not guide the political executive properly; rather opted suitable phraseology while sending two more letters of appointment,” the bench said, adding that the government “alienated” the entire cadre of superintendent, jails, to the paramilitary office in “utter disregard of the statutory rules”.

To the argument by the state that it had executive powers for making such appointments, court observed that the executive powers cannot be assumed as unlimited or unbridled, rather limited under constitution. Once statutory rules are framed for appointments, the same have to be done as per that, it added.

The court further observed that at best if a situation so arises, the paramilitary forces may be deployed only at the outer layer of the jail and that does not mean that central forces would run the prison administration.