ANGREZ KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANGREZ Kaur, petitioner, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 21.6.1999, Annexure P -5, issued by the respondent No. 3, vide which the petitioner was transferred from her parent department of Homeopathy to Ayurvedic Department.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the service of the Punjab Govt. somewhere in the year 1977. She was initially recruited in the office of the Sikh Gurudwara Tribunal were she got promotion as Senior Clerk and Senior Assistant, etc. She remained employed in the office of the said Tribunal up to 24.2.1992 when the Tribunal was abolished by the Govt. of India. The petitioner became surplus. Sne had been representing to the Govt. for her absorption in the other departments. Finally, with the intervention of the high -ups, the petitioner was absorbed in the office of the Punjab Home Guards on 17.9.1992, being the surplus staff, where she remained employed up to 28.2.1994, The sanction to the post against which the petitioner was working was not granted by the State Govt. as a result of which the petitioner again come on the road. As a surplus staff, again, she was adjusted in the Homeopathic Deptt. in the office of Director, Ayurvedic, Punjab, vide order dated 2.3.1995. Vide office order dated 21.6.1996, the petitioner was transferred to the Head Office. Ayurvedic Deptt., Punjab, Chandigarh. The petitioner has given challenge to her transfer order Annexure P -S in the present writ petition mainly on the ground that she being the employee of the Homeopathic Deptt. which is an independent Deptt. could not be transferred to Ayurvedic Deptt. of the Punjab Govt. and that the Ayurvedic Department (Class III Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') could not be made applicable to her case. This attempt on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal, violative and unconstitutional as the cadre of the petitioner could not be changed from Homeopathic Deptt. to Ayurvedic Deptt. By this action of the Department, the chances of promotion of the petitioner have become remote.

(3.) ON merits, the stand of the State was that though the petitioner was working under the Homeopathic Deptt. but the service of the petitioner is governed under the Rules. So, in these circumstances, it is not necessary to take the consent of the petitioner for her transfer to the Ayurvedic Deptt. Though the Homeopathic Deptt. is working as a separate department but the ministerial staff working in the Homeopathic Deptt. is under the active control of the Ayurvedic Deptt. At the time of appointment of the petitioner made by the Homeopathic Deptt, it was made clear that the services of the petitioner will be governed under the Rules. At the time of appointment of the petitioner, copy of the joining report ought to have been endorsed to the Ayurvedic Deptt. and for that reason her name could not be entered in the seniority list of the Senior Assistants of Ayurvedic Deptt. After receiving the same, the name of the petitioner was entered in the Seniority list of Senior Assistants according to her joining report. Moreover, as per the appointment order, the petitioner was appointed afresh. No representation of the petitioner was received in the Deptt., so the question of considering her for promotion does not arise as she is junior in the clerical staff cadre of the Ayurvedic Deptt. The petitioner was transferred in the general transfer, the petitioner made a representation to respondents 1 and 2 about the order of transfer but she has not made any representation to the Ayurvedic Deptt. The petitioner has not exhausted her all channels of remedy . Justifying the transfer, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. Yet an other written statement was filed by respondents 1 to 3 under the signatures of Shri Harjit Singh on 29.10.1999 in which the stand of the State is the same with a clarification that no separate service rules governing the municipal care (cadre ?) in the Homeopathic Deptt. has been appointing formulated by the State Government and there are only the 1963 Rules and the Director of the Ayurvedic Deptt. is the Director and transferring authority under the Rules. The Director, Homeopathic Deptt. is not competent to make any appointment to Class -111 posts. It is only the Director, Ayurvedic Deptt. Punjab who is competent to make such appointments under the Rules. Thus, the main defence of the respondents is that the petitioner is governed by the Rules and the appointing authority of the employees working in the Homeopathic Deptt. is also the Director, Ayurvedic, Punjab.