GURMEL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of quo warranto for quashing the order of the Punjab Government dated January 30, 1970, appointing S.C Chadha, respondent No. 3, as the Senior Technical Officer (Textiles) in the Government Industrial Development cum -Service Centre for Textiles, Ludhiana (Annexure 'D' to the writ petition) and the further order of the Government dated July 21, 1970 (Annexure 'H') extending said appointment of respondent No. 3 for a further period of six months. The petitioner has also prayed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a direction being issued to respondents 1 and 2 (The State of Punjab and the Director of Industries, Punjab) to fill in the post in question by departmental promotion instead of advertising the same. The brief facts leading to the filing to this petition may first be surveyed.

(2.) GURMEL Singh petitioner is admittedly a member of one of the scheduled castes, as recognized by the Punjab Government as well as by the Government of India. He had been appointed as an Assistant Superintendent, Quality Marking Centre (Textiles) on July 1, 1965, in the composite State of Punjab. As disclosed in the State's return, the petitioner was allocated to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh consequent on the bifurcation of the Punjab State under the Punjab Re organisation Act, 1966, Thereafter, he applied for the post of a Technical Manager (Textiles) Finishing Plant, Ludhiana, for which he was selected through the Punjab Public Service Commission.

(3.) THE period of six months for which the ad hoc appointment of respondent No. 3 had been made expired on July 30, 1970 Despite the storm which had been raised by the petitioner and the admitted orders passed by the Minister In charge of the Industries Department (Annexure 'G'), which are quoted below, the Secretary to the Government issued the second impugned order (Annexure 'H'), in the name of the Governor, extending the appointment of respondent No. 3 for another period of six months: