BHUPINDER SINGH SANDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner started his career in the service of Punjab Government as Automobile Engineer on 17th March, 1970; he was promoted to the post of Mechanical Automobile Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1300 with effect from 3rd October, 1975 on purely ad hoc basis. This ad hoc arrangement continued for sufficiently long time. He came to know that respondent No. 3 Deputy Director, State Transport, Punjab, has been approved by the Public Service Commission for the post of Mechanical Automobile Engineer and as a result of this, the petitioner was going to be reverted from th post of Mechanical Automobile Engineer. The petitioner has challenged the order of reversion on the ground that reversion is violative of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is also averred that respondent No. 3 is being approved for promotion after his adverse remarks had been expunged. Before expunging the adverse remarks, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing. The State has filed written statement through Shri G.S. Sandhu, I.A.S., Deputy Secretary, Transport, Punjab. In the written statement, the State has taken the stand that the petitioner was appointed Mechanical Automobile Engineer on purely ad hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement for a period of six months or till a candidate is recommended by Punjab Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') for appointment to this post whichever is earlier. It has been clarified that there was a lengthy correspondence between the Government and the Commission regarding the appointment of the petitioner and it was not correct that the case for regularisation of the service of the petitioner was pending. It is pointed out that the Commission raised several objections to the appointment of the petitioner such as :-

(2.) It is further stated that respondent No. 3 represented to the Government that it had not correctly informed the Commission about his experience. It was stated in the representation that respondent No. 3 fulfilled the qualification. In his representation, respondent No. 3 stated that his experience on the higher post of General Manager, Punjab Roadways, in addition to the experience as Works Manager has to be counted for the purpose of promotion to the post of Mechanical Automobile Engineer. The representation was accepted by the Government. It came to the conclusion that the claim of respondent No. 3 was valid. At the time of reference of the case to the Commission, respondent No. 3 was working on a higher post of General Manager and, therefore, he was certainly senior to the petitioner in the lower post from where promotion was being considered. It was also found that factual inaccuracy must be brought to the notice of the Commission in the interest of justice and equality of treatment was to be given to the eligible officers. Another relevant fact which came on record was that the adverse remarks given in one of the confidential reports of respondent No. 3 for the year 1977-78 had been represented against by him vide his representation dated 14.6.1979. This representation had been processed by obtaining comments from his supervisory officers. While representation against these adverse remarks in the confidential report had yet to be decided, this fact was not correctly stated in the reference made to the Commission vide letter dated 31st March, 1980 and it was mentioned that the record of service of respondent No. 3 is not good. It is further averred in the written statement that since the rights of individual officers to a higher post were involved, it was necessary in the interest of justice that the State Government bring these facts to the notice of the Commission. This was accordingly done in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on the issue whether the advice of the Commission should be accepted or whether the case should be referred back to the Commission. It is also stated that after considering all aspects of the matter and with a view solely to do justice to the conflicting claims of both the officers, the Government referred the case again to the Commission for reconsideration by taking into consideration the correct factual position. The correct position about the qualifications and experience laid down in the draft rules was brought to the notice of the Commission. The Commission re-examined the matter on 26.12.1983 and informed the Government conveying its approval to the suitability of respondent No. 3 for promotion to the post of Mechanical Automobile Engineer.

(3.) Written statement has also been filed on behalf of the Commission through Shri Shamsher Singh, Under Secretary to the Commission. The Commission has taken the stand in the written statement that the qualifications for the post of Mechanical Automobile Engineer were laid down by the Government with the approval of the Commission. The Government vide letter No. 1/9/78/I.T./4067, dated 28.6.1982 asked the Commission to reconsider the matter. In the reference, it was pointed out that respondent No. 3 was holding the post which was senior in status and responsibility to that of Automobile Engineer held by the petitioner at the time of making reference to the Commission. The Government requested it to reconsider the case afresh keeping in view the qualifcation/experience mentioned in the draft rules. The Commission has further stated in it that the recommendation for promotion of respondent No. 3 was made as a result of objective appraisal of the de novo representation of facts by the Government. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the written statements filed by the State Government and the Commission.