JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are working as Junior Engineers in the P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch), have filed this writ petition jointly under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India wherein they have sought for quashing the order dated 27.1.1983 so far as it relates to the promotion of respondents Nos. 3 to 7 as Officiating Sub Divisional Officers and have claimed promotion w.ei. 27.1.1983, the date from which the persons junior to them were promoted.

(2.) In brief, the case of the petitioners is that they joined as Sectional Officers in Punjab P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch) before 1960. In the seniority list corrected upto 31.12.1980, issued by the State of Punjab, their names figure at serial Nos 422, 432, 455, 456 and 457, whereas in the seniority list corrected upto 31.12.1973, the names of respondents Nos 3 to 7 appear at serial Nos. 578, 589, 628 and 647. Extract of both- these seniority lists are Annexures P-1 and P-1/A to the writ petition.

(3.) It has been contended that the petitioners have 10 years experience as Overseers and had qualified the Revenue Examination on 3rd November, 1982 and also cleared the Professional Examination as required under Sub rule (2) of Rule 5 of P.S.E. Class- II (PWD Irrigation) Rules, 1941. For promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (Class-II) 35% quota is reserved for overseers. It is further contended that on January 27, 1983, 12 persons were promoted vide order 27.1.1983, copy Annexure P-6 to the writ petition, out of which five were senior and the remaining seven were junior to them. Though the petitioners were senior to respondents No. 3 to 7 and eligible for being promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Officers, yet they were not considered and brought on the selection list. In response to the letter dated 18.11.1982 of the Chief Engineer, Irrrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2, the service data of the petitioner was sent and thereafter they made representations to respondents No. 1 and 2 and a regd. notice was also served upon respondent No. 1. Despite all this, the petitioners were not promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Officers.