ACHHRU RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are being disposed of by a common order because the issues raised in the two cases are inter-related.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that even though, they had become eligible for promotion as Sub Divisional Engineers on 1.1.1983, the government had failed to undertake exercise for making promotion in accordance with Rule 6 read with Rule 9 of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class-II, P.W.D. (Public Health) Rules, 1967 (for short, 'the 1967 Rules') despite the fact that as many as 35 persons were appointed by direct recruitment in the year 1987 and in this manner, they are being deprived of their legitimate right to be promoted as regular Sub Divisional Engineers. Their further grievance is that on the one hand, the government has failed to make regular promotions in accordance with the 1967 Rules and on the other hand, they are sought to be reverted to the lower post of Junior Engineer.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents, it has been averred that in terms of Rule 9(3) of the 1967 Rules, the Screening Committee is required to meet at an interval of one year, but regular promotions could not be made due to pending litigation. According to them, respondent No. 2- Kulwant Singh was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer in April, 1984 because he was senior to the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Engineers. In paragraphs 10 and 11, the official respondents have made the following averments: