K.G. NANCHAHAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are working as Senior Architects in the State of Punjab pray in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of an order dated 27.4.2001 vide which Shri P.R. Luthra, Chief Architect, Punjab, was permitted to continue in service. They further pray that the respondent-State of Punjab be directed to consider the cases of the petitioners along with other senior eligible officers in the Department of Architecture, Punjab, for appointment to the posts of Chief Architect/Additional Chief Architect. At the very out-set it will be appropriate to refer to the impugned order dated 27.4.2001 as under :-

(2.) The orders issued with the concurrence of the Personnel Department and Finance Department conveyed vide their I.D. No. 16/3/2000-4ppl/dated 2.3.2001 and I.D. No. 2(6)7/2001-2FF4/2303, dated 16.4.2001 respectively.

(3.) Before we notice the grounds of challenge to the above orders, it will be appropriate to refer the facts giving rise to this petition. According to the petitioners, they are working as Senior Architects in the State of Punjab, while respondent No. 3 Amrit Gupta is working as Additional Chief Architect in the State. They have a good service record. Under the promotion rules, the post of chief Architect is to be filled up by promotion alone, the criteria for which is seniority-cum-merit. The respondent-State has firstly granted continuity in service beyond the age of superannuation to respondent No. 2 Mr. P.R. Luthra and thereafter the Government has taken a decision to re-employ him for a period of one year. The decision of the Government is stated to be contrary to rules and instructions issued by the Government itself. The respondent No. 2 had to superannuate on 30.4.2001, but on 27.4.2001 the order of continuation in service beyond superannuation was issued. The petitioner and other eligible candidates are to retire between the period of 30.11.2001 to 31.3.2003. All of them were/are eligible for being promoted to the post of Chief Architect in accordance with the rules. The extension/re-employment of respondent No. 2 has marred the chances of their promotion and even for consideration of promotion to the post of Chief Architect Thus, the appointment of respondent No. 3 is contrary to the Rules, violative of the conditions of service of the petitioners and is not even in public interest. According to the petitioners the conditions precedent to re-employment as prescribed under the Rules and instructions issued by the Government itself have not been satisfied. As such the said appointment is liable to be quashed.