BAKHSHISH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bakhshish Singh, the appellant, was appointed an Assistant in the Punjab Civil Secretariat on December 7, 1948 and was confirmed on September 1, 1956. Manohar Singh, Sardar Singh, D, Justin and Prithipal Singh Chawala, respondents 3 to 6 were also Assistants in the Punjab Civil, Secretariat, but were junior to the appellant. All of them were working as Assistants on November 1, 1956 when consequent on the States Reorganisation Act, the former States of Punjab and Pepsu were merged into one State. On merger the conditions of service of those employed by the former States of Punjab and Pepsu were protected as provided by sections 115(7) and 117 of the States Reorganisation Act. The rules in force at that time, which governed them, were the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Services Class III) Rules, 1952. Rule 6(I)(b) provided that posts of Superintendents, Records in the service were to be filled by selection among Assistants. Posts of Assistants in charge were to be filled (i) by promotion of Assistants; or (ii) by transfer or deputation of an official already in Government service. Rule 6(I)(c) provided that posts of Assistants-in-charge were to be filled (i) by promotion of Assistants; or (ii) by transfer or deputation of an official already in Government service. Rule 6(I)(d) provided that the post of Superintendent, Military Secretary to Governor's office was to be filled by selection amongsts Assistants. In October, 1963, the posts of Superintendents were made class II posts and came to be governed by the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class II) Rules. Rule 8(I)(a) provided that posts of Superintendents other than the Superintendent in the Press Branch were to be made (i) by promotion from amongst Deputy Superintendents, Assistants-in-charge and Assistants, who are members of the Punjab Civil Secretariate (State Service Class III) with minimum experience of one year as Deputy Superintendent or a total experience of 10 years as an Assistant ; or (ii) by direct recruitment or by transfer or deputation of an official already in Government service holding:a ministerial post. We are not concerned with the proviso to rule 8(I)(a). Rule 8(I)(b) dealt with the post of Superintendent, Press Branch with which also we are not concerned. While this was so, as an experimental measure some posts of Assistant Section Officers were created which were not posts which belonged either to the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Services Class III) or Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Services Class II). Appointment to these posts were to be made from Assistants belonging to the Punjab Civil Secretariate (State Services Class III) on the basis of an examination to be held by the Public Service Commission. Respondents 3 to 6 were selected and appointed as Assistant Section Officers as they were successful in the examination. The appellant either did not appear at the examination or was not successful at the examination. Therefore, he continued as Assistant in the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class III). By an order dated March 14, 1961, the Government expressly provided that the seniority of those appointed as Assistant Section Officers in their normal lines as Assistants will remain unchanged and that their promotion as Deputy Superintendents/Superintendents will be governed by their seniority as Assistants. Even so some Assistant Section Officers were promoted as Superintendents without reference to their seniority as Assistants. The promotions were quashed by the Punjab High Court in Roshan Lal Sharma's case 1966 Cur LJ 848. The State of Punjab thereupon thought fit to amend the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Services Class II) by introducing anew rule 8(I)(a)(i) in the place of the old rule 8(I)(a)(i) which was as follows:-

(2.) Respondents 3-6 who were junior to the petitioners as Assistants, but who had been appointed as Assistant Section, Officers were promoted as Superintendents. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the promotion of respondents 3-6. The writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge, but on appeal, the judgment of the. learned single Judie was reversed by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court. The appellant obtained special leave from this court and that is how the matter has now come before us for final disposal.

(3.) Shri Hardev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the guarantee given to the appellant by sections 115(7) and 117 of the States Reorganisation Act had been violated in the case by the creation of the posts of Assistant Section Officers and by the provision for their promotion to the posts of Superintendents in the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Services Class, II). According to him, the so-called approval granted by the Central Government by its letter dated 20th May, 1967 was in fact no approval at all and in any case, it could not operate to validate the promotions made pursuant to the amended rules, but before the Central Government granted its so-called approval. We see no force in the submission of Shri Hardev Singh. In fact, we are of the view that there has been no infringement of the guarantees afforded by the sections 115(7) and 117 of the States Reorganisation Act. All that has happened is that some new posts outside the Civil Secretariat Class III service were created and persons holding those posts were also made eligible for promotion to the posts of Superintendents along with those who held the posts of Assistants belonging to Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class III). Putting it at the best, it may be said that the creation of the new posts outside the class III service and making persons holding those posts eligible for promotion as Superintendents reduced the chances of promotion of Assistants belonging to Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Services Class III). This is no contravention of Sec. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act. In Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India (1975) 1 SCR 449, it has been held: