TEJINDER SINGH SANDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Tejinder Singh Sandhu, and respondent 2 and 3 were serving initially as Class III Officers but were recruited directly as Class II Officers in the erstwhile State of Patiala and the East Punjab States" Union, (Pepsu), After the reorganisation of Punjab and Pepsu, they were absorbed in the Punjab Agricultural Service, Class II. In the seniority list of Class II Officers, respondent 2 was shown at serial No. 30, respondent 3 at serial No. 39 and the appellant at serial No. 40. On Aug. 2, 1965, appellant and respondent 3 were promoted on an ad hoc basis as Deputy Directors of Agriculture, a post borne on the cadre of Class I Service. The appellant took charge of that post on Aug. 4, 1965 while respondent 3 took charge fourteen days later on Aug. 18, 1965. The ad hoc promotions were made for a period of three months or until such time as the appointments could be made on a regular basis.

(2.) Respondent 2 was working at the material time in the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. The Government of Punjab having taken a decision in Oct. 1966 to allow its officers who were working on deputation with the Ludhiana Agricultural University to rejoin the State Service, respondent 2 returned to the parent Department on Oct. 28, 1966. He was promoted as Deputy Director of Agriculture, Class I, on Feb. 22, 1967 on the same basis as the appellant and respondent 3.

(3.) The appellant completed his probation on Aug. 3, 1967 while respondents 2 and 3 completed theirs on Feb. 21, 1969 and March 1, 1968, respectively. On Oct. 14, 1971, the Government of Punjab published a tentative seniority list of Class I Officers in which the appellant was shown as junior to respondents 2 and 3. Acting on the basis of the seniority list, the State Government promoted respondent 2 to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture on July 10, 1973 and respondent 3 on July 16, 1973. the appellant had filed a representation on the publication of the seniority list complaining that since he had officiated continuously in the Class I post for a longer period than respondents 2 and 3 and had completed his probation before they had completed theirs, he should have been treated as senior to the other two and was entitled to be promoted as Joint Director in preference to them. It was implicit in the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 to the post of Joint Director that the appellant"s representation was rejected by the Government.