SANT RAM, PATWARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims that the promotion of eight Patwaris vide order dated 3rd August, 1981, which excluded him for promotion for the post of Kanungo, is totally vitiated. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents had reserved five vacancies of Kanungos to be filled up from the Patwaris belonging to the Scheduled Castes working in the district and out of eight Patwaris promoted vide order dated 3rd August, 1981, only respondents No. 3 and 4 were junior to him and, therefore, they could not be promoted in preference to the petitioner who also belongs to the category of Scheduled Caste and was admittedly senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. He has even gone to the extent of saying that while making promotion, as mentioned above, his case was not considered. The action of the respondents in not promoting him and instead promoting the juniors is styled by him to be wholly illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The respondents while opposing the claim of the petitioner have relied upon the record of the petitioner which has been categorised as unsatisfactory. Although it is admitted that the petitioner was senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and that he belonged to the category of Scheduled Castes but his case was considered for promotion and he was ignored on account of the fact that his record was highly unsatisfactory and that he had adverse entries recorded against him, some of which were also on account of corruption. He was given warnings and censures. The respondents also relied upon Rule 9(2) of the Punjab Kanungo Service (State Service Class III) Rules, 1976, which is reproduced as under :-

(3.) Thus in the written statement, the relief claimed by the petitioner was opposed on two grounds, that is, unsatisfactory record of the petitioner and the other Patwaris who were promoted, that is, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 being better in merit than the petitioner irrespective of the seniority of the petitioner.