CHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 10/8/1990 of the Punjab and Haryana High court dismissing their Civil Writ Petition No. 366 of 1990 wherein a challenge had been made to the re-fixation of their seniority and consequent reversions made to the lower post. The appellants had joined the service in the State of Punjab as Clerks. The next higher post for promo:ion of a Clerk was that of an Assistant. In the hierarchy, the posts for further promotions were those of Superintendent Grade II, Superintendent Grade I, Assistant secretary, and Under secretary. It appears that a Clerk was required to qualify in a test for promotion to the post of an Assistant. During the period between 1964 to 1984, for some reason no such tests were held by the State government. The appellants were provisionally promoted from the posts of Clerks to those of Assistants from 1966 to 1975 and then were granted further provisional promotions to the next higher posts above that of the Assistants.

(2.) The Rules applicable earlier were Punjab Financial Commissioner's Office (State Service Class III) Rules, 1957. It was the effect of Rules 6 (f) and 7 (l) (c) of those Rules which required a Clerk to qualify in the test for promotion to the post of Assistant. Thereafter the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984 made under the proviso to Article 309 came into force with effect from 11/4/1984. It is primarily the provisions in the 1984 Rules which are material for deciding the controversy in this appeal.

(3.) Even though the appeal has to be decided essentially with reference to the provisions of 1984 Rules, yet a passing reference to some earlier history may be made. One Satpal Sharma, an employee of the erstwhile State of Pepsu which had merged in the State of Punjab with effect from 1/11/1956 on the reorganisation of the States, had challenged the requirement in the 1957 Rules of qualifying in the test for promotion from the post of Clerk to that of Assistant, in Writ Petition No. 1055 of 1966 filed in the Punjab High court. The High court by its judgment dated 22/3/1968 held the aforesaid Rules 6 (f) and 7 (1 (e) of the 1957 Rules to be void. It is likely that as a result of this decision of the High court no qualifying test was held thereafter till 1984. The next litigation was Writ Petition No. 963 of 1975 filed by one Kundan Singh, challenging the promotion of Appellant II. Surjeet Singh Bhatti as Superintendent, Grade II. This writ petition was dismissed by the High court on 17/2/1983. The High court while dismissing that writ petition held that the provisional promotion of Surjeet Singh Bhatti to the post of Assistant could not be questioned on the ground that he had not qualified in the prescribed test. Thereafter Writ Petition No. 6169 of 1987 was filed in the High court by one Avtar Singh who had qualified in the test and was promoted as Assistant in 1964. challenging the seniority list. The High court held in that case that Rules 6 (/) and 7 (l) (e) of the 1957 Rules were held ultra vires only in relation to employees who had joined service prior to the coming into force of the 1957 Rules. It may, however, be observed that the effect and scope of the decision in the writ petition filed by Satpal Sharma is to be determined with reference to the order made therein and not with reference to the manner in which it was read subsequently in another matter by the High court.