JARNAIL SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole controversy in this writ petition is whether all the Beldars posted in different offices under the Directorate of Agriculture. Punjab, belong to one cadre or that they belong to different cadres vis-a-vis different sections in the offices where they are posted.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Jarnail Singh and Sham Lal petitioners were working as Beldars in the office of Assistant Cane Development Officer, Agriculture Department Dhuri. Jarnail Singh was selected as Beldar on 29.11.1968 by the Selection Committee constituted by the Cane Commissioner, Punjab (Respondent No. 2) while Sham Lal Petitioner joined service after his selection by the Departmental Committee on 11.4.1966. It is averred that in the entire State of Punjab, the cadre of Beldars is one. 20 percent posts are required to be filled up from the strength of cadre of Beldars for the post of Sub-Inspector Agriculture. Under the instructions dated 20.10.1973 (Annexure P 2) it has been provided that the Beldars who have completed two years service in the department as such, are entitled to be considered for promotion as Sub-Inspector Agriculture provided they have good service record and a~e educated. Jarnail Singh petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and thus claims a right to be pro noted to the post of Sub-Inspector, Agriculture after two years of his satisfactory service from the reserved quota of 20 per cent from the Beldars. It is also maintained that in the year 1972, a requisition was sent by the Deputy Director Agriculture (Cotton Development) Respondent No. 1 asking the latter to fill up all the vacancies of Beldars from the department. Accordingly, all the posts were filled up and promotions were made from the department itself. Thus, it is maintained that there is no division or section-wise distribution on the basis of which the promotions to the posts of Sub-Inspector Agriculture could be made. Reference in this regard has also been made to letter Annexure P. 4 written by the Cane Commissioner, Punjab, to the Deputy Director Agriculture (Cotton Development) Punjab inviting his attention to letter No. 771 dated 10.4.1972 (Annexure P. 3) of the office of the Assistant Cane Development Officer, Dhuri and emphasising that because of the delay in sending the lists of the Beldars, their names could not be considered. It was further directed that after considering their case, they be promoted as Sub-Inspector Agriculture. Thus, it is maintained that in the year 1972 when about 60 posts of Sub-Inspector Agriculture were filled up by way of promotion from the Departmental Beldars, the names of the petitioners were ignored. Thereafter, the Union of the Petitioners Association, called as Class IV Agricultural Government Servants Union District Sangrur had been agitating and making various representations against injustice but they failed to get any redress at the hands of the Director Agriculture' Then after. Respondent No. 2 made further promotions from the Beldars on 7.8.1979 vide Annexure P. I and by this order 6 Beldars were promoted as Sub-Inspectors Agriculture who were working on six months basis with effect from 21.6.1979 and made regular. Out of these ten Beldars only Raghbir Singh figuring at S. No. 3 is a Scheduled Caste while the rest are from the general category. It is further maintained that as per instructions Annexure P. 2 only those Beldars could be promoted as Sub-Inspector Agriculture who had completed two years service with good record,

(3.) The petitioners had challenged the selection made vide letter Annexure P. 3 on the ground that all those persons who were promoted, were junior to the petitioners and they were recruited on six months basis with effect from 21.6.1979 while the petitioners who fulfilled the requisite qualifications with good record of service were not considered by Respondent No. 3 although the petitioners belong to the same area same district and same department. The petitioners then filed representations to the respondents against this grave injustice and ultimately Respondent No. 2 rejected their representation on 17.11.79, stating therein that the promotions had been based on seniority in the section wise cadre. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition for quashing the order Annexure P. 1 as being illegal and have craved for directing the respondents to treat the cadre of the petitioners as one cadre under the Rules and give them promotions from the due date with all consequential benefits.