ER. KULBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principle grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is that inspite of the vacancies being available, the respondents are not making promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer from the feeding cadre of Executive Engineers in accordance with existing rules and policies and are acting arbitrarily to deny the chances of consideration and promotion to the petitioners.

(2.) All the petitioners are degree holders and petitioners No. 2 to 4 even hold Master's degree in Engineering. they were appointed to the Civil Service of Engineers, Class-I PWD, Punjab, which are controlled by the Punjab Services of Engineers, Class-I, PWD (Buildings and Road Branch) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. They were promoted as Executive Engineers with effect from 1.1.1986 vide order dated 13.5.1991 issued by the competent authority. On 29.12.2000 respondents issued instructions containing the policy of the Government in regard to promotions in this service, copy whereof is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P/3. These instructions were in supersession to the instructions issued earlier on 1.10.1999. These policy instructions specify as to how the merit is to be determined and promotion to be granted to the various posts. Under this policy, promotions were made to various posts, lower as well as higher in hierarchy in the department, only to the post of Superintending Engineer, the feeding cadre for which is Executive Engineers. These instructions were in operation and the D.P.C. made these promotions on the basis of the said instructions. On 15.3.2001 the Department of Personnel, Punjab Government, issued instructions to all the departments of the State requiring them to made regular promotions and not to give current duty charge. The relevant part of the said instructions reads as under :-

(3.) However, vide order dated 19.7.2001 the Department of Personnel informed all departments that the instructions dated 29.12.2000 (Annexure P/3) be kept in abeyance till further directions are issued. This added to the grievance of the petitioners as according to them the authorities concerned intentionally did not promote the petitioners to the post of Superintending Engineer as no D.P.C. was constituted to consider the cases of eligible candidates including the petitioners. On the other hand, the Government intentionally directed the instructions to be kept in abeyance and, thus, again un-necessarily delaying the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the higher posts. being aggrieved from this inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioners approached this Court by means of this petition.