HARDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner joined service as a Clerk in the Excise and Taxation Department of the Punjab Government at Lahore on May 27, 1941. He was promoted as Senior Steno -typist in 1944 and was promoted as Stenographer on January 7, 1949, after the partition of the country. He was promoted as Taxation Sub -Inspector in June, 1950, and on the merger of the posts of Taxation Inspectors and Taxation Sub -Inspectors, he became a Taxation Inspector with effect from April 1, 1966. By an order of the Punjab Government dated March 28, 1968, (copy annexure R -3/1), the Petitioner and twelve other Taxation Inspectors, including Respondents 6 to 9, were promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers on purely temporary basis. By the same order, four members of the ministerial staff of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner's Office, including Respondents 3 to 5, were promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers on purely temporary basis. By another order of the same date (copy annexure 'A'), all the thirteen Taxation Inspectors and three members of the ministerial staff, Respondents 3 to 5, were posted at various places mentioned against their names. In this order, the Petitioner is shown at No. 13 while Respondents 6 to 9 are shown at serial Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 12. Respondents 3 to 5 are shown at serial Nos. 14, 15 and 16. It is inferred from this order that amongst the Taxation Inspectors promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers, the Petitioner was the juniormost. Respondent 2, S.S. Pahwa, was also then a Taxation Inspector and was not promoted to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer on the ground that he was not a graduate. He made a representation to the State Government on April, 1968, which was accepted and he was promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer by an order of the State Government dated June 15, 1968, by relaxing the provisions of Rules 5(a) and 7 -B of the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department (State Service Class III -A) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules), from the date his junior was promoted as such and the Petitioner was reverted as Taxation Inspector on the ground that he was the juniormost. It was further directed that Respondent 2 would retain his original seniority as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, irrespective of his earlier supersession. It was also made clear that the appointment of Respondent 2 as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer was subject to the approval of the Punjab Public Service Commission and also subject to the condition that he would be liable to reversion as soon as suitable candidates for regular appointment by direct recruitment or otherwise became available. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the State Government dated June 15, 1968, promoting Respondent 2 as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer and reverting the Petitioner to his substantive post of Taxation Inspector on various grounds set out in the petition and in Civil Misc. 4118 of 1968.

(2.) WRITTEN statements have been filed on behalf of Respondents 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8. The Petitioner filed a replication to which a reply was also filed.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with this contention, I may point out that there is no contest between the Petitioner and Respondents 2 and 6 to 9 on the one hand and Respondents 3 to 5 on the other, for the reason that Respondents 3 to 5 belonged to the ministerial staff of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner's Office while the Petitioner and other Respondents belonged to the category of Taxation Inspectors. Under Rule 6, separate quota is fixed for each of these categories and there is no contest between one category and the other. The contest is between the members of the same category. Rule 9 prescribes the conditions for the recruitment of members of the ministerial staff of the establishment of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, and reads as under: