‘CM recommended extension to addl director prosecution’

CHANDIGARH: Punjab chief minister Captain Amarinder Singh had recommended the appointment of Vijay Singla as additional director, prosecution, a day after his retirement on January 31. Singla, who is also director prosecution joined back on February 3.

The record of the controversy was perused on Thursday by high court bench of justice Ritu Bahri during resumed hearing of a plea of Satnam Singh Kaler, a joint director with the prosecution department, who has challenged Singla’s extension.

“It transpires from the official file that there is noting on January 29, 2020, whereby list of officers was to be presented before the departmental promotion committee (DPC) and after retirement of Singla on January 31, 2020, the CM took a decision to grant extension to him on February 1, 2020, itself as per the noting,” says the order passed by high court on Thursday, after perusing the record and asking the state government to file a detailed reply on the issue.

The order says the CM recommended the appointment under

Rule 3.26(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules under which the state government is empowered to grant an extension, if it is of the opinion that same would be in ‘public interest’.

The high court had summoned record on June 3 on the plea after his counsel Shekhar Verma had told the court that Singla had availed two optional extensions in service till January 31. But after retirement, he was re-employed on February 3 on regular basis against a regular post without the approval of finance department and the state cabinet. The petitioner said only two extensions can be granted to an employee as per the Punjab government service rules.

Verma had told court that the department initiated process of the DPC for the appointment on January 23 and on January 25, Singla’s retirement orders were passed. The DPC met on February 10 and his name was recommended for promotion. But by that time Singla had joined. Despite him being the only eligible person in the department for promotion to the post of additional director, he was not considered, the petitioner had told the court.