MOHANSINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant, Mohan Singh, was promoted as an Assistant on 20-10-1973 and was confirmed with effect from 13-10-1980. When vacancy in the post of Superintendent Grade-I arose on 27-11-1989 on promotion of one Gurdev Singh as Assistant Registrar, the Advocate General, Punjab promoted him as Superintendent Grade I. Calling that promotion in question, respondents Tarlok Singh and Deena Nath Singla filed C. W. P. No. 80/90 in the High Court which was allowed by the learned single Judge and L. P. A. No. 796/94 filed by appellant Mohan Singh was dismissed by a Division Bench by order dated 26-11-1994. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

(3.) The only question is whether the appellant is entitled for promotion from the post of Assistant to the post of Superintendent Grade-I. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the post which fell vacant on the promotion of Gurdev Singh was not reserved, it being the fifth post and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to that post. We find no force in the contention. The chart at page 16 of the Paper Book (prepared on the basis of averments made in counter affidavit of the Advocate General filed in the High Court) clearly indicates that the first vacancy occurred on 3-6-70. On second occasion, namely, 17-7-1975, a second post of Superintendent Grade-I was created and Shiv Kumar Sharma, who was working as P. A. to the Advocate General was appointed to that post. It is contended that the same cannot be considered as second vacancy. We do not agree, as when the second post was created on 17-7-1975, though the incumbent was promoted along with creation of the post, it is clear that a vacancy had arisen. Thus considered, the Advocate General was right in his stand taken in the High Court that the vacancy at hand was the 6th vacancy reserved for member of the scheduled Castes as per the roster.