STATE OF PUNJAB, ETC Vs. JUGAL KISHORE GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 123 and 162 of 1969. These appeals are directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the pertition filed by the respective respondents in each case.

(2.) On facts there is no dispute. Shortly stated, both the respondents-petitioners were officiating Sub-Divisional Officers. A screening committee was appointed to see whether they could be tkaen into Class II Service. The screening committee made a recommendation that they were not fit to be taken into Class II Service. This recommendation was forwarded to the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commissino dittoed the smae, with the result that the Government of Punjab passed an order reverting the respondents to their substantive rank. The respondents preferred two petitions in this Court 226 of the Constitution claiming that the order reverting them to their substantive rank on the ground that they were not suitable for promotion amounted to a stigma and, therefore, it was invalid in view of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The petitions came up for hearing before Narula J, and the learned Judge, following the decision of Gurdev Singh, J. in R.K. Aggarwal v. Punjab State, Civil Writ No. 10 of 1968, decided on 28th April, 1968, allwed the petitions. Gurdev Singh J., had held that the order of reversion passed on the ground that the incumbent of a post was not suitable to hold it, attaches stigma and therefore, it violates the guarantee given by Article 311 of the Constitution to the services. This decisions is no longer good law in view of the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. R.S. Dhaba, 1969 SLR 442. In the very nature of things, while considering the matter of promotion, the authority has to decide whether a person is or not fit for promotion and, therefore, such a decision can in no sense be said to attach a stigma or can be treated as operating as a punishment. Therefore, Article 311 will not come into play.

(3.) We would have, following the decision of the Supreme Court, reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge, but the learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to Prithvi Raj Mehra v. The State of Punjab, 1968 SLR 887. This decision has the seal of approval by the Supreme Court because a special leave petition against this decision has failed. According to this decision, the committee should have heard for respondents before coming to a conclusion whether they were fit or not fit to be promoted. This is incumbent under the rules under which the screening committee has functioned. Rules, analogous to the Rules which governed in the present respondents, fell for determination in Prithvi Raj Mehra's case . In view of that decision, of there is no option but to affirm the decision the learned Single, Judge, though on a different ground.