SINDER PAL Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two Writ Petition Nos. 2584 and 2585 of 1980, as the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that common questions of law and fact arise in both of them. To appreciate the points in controversy, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 2584 of 1980.

(2.) The Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board (hereinafter called the Board) advertised some posts of Punjabi Typists/Clerks in the year 1975-76, and a test was held from Sept., 1975 to Feb., 1976 to select eligible candidates. The petitioner who was a candidate was selected and was placed in order of merit at serial No. 216 of the select list and the Board recommended his name on 3.9.1976 for being posted in the office ofDeputy Commissioner, Patiala. However, the petitioner who claimed to have had some experience in the department of Food and Supplies requested the Board that he be recommended for appointment in the said department where the posts of Typists/Clerks were available. This request of the petitioner was acceded to and the Board recommended him for appointment in the said department as per letter dated 30.11.1976. The Director, Food & Supplies, Punjab issued appointment letter dated 27.7.1977 for the post of a clerk in the scale of Rs. 110-250 and the petitioner was posted in the office of District Food and Supplies Controller, Sangrur. He joined on regular basis on 29.7.1977.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 3 to 25 were also selected by the Board in the same selection and their names were directly recommended for being appointed in the Food and Supplies Department vide letter dated 17.1.1977. The case of the petitioner is that he was placed by the Board higher in the order of merit in the select list than respondent No. 3 to 25 and on this basis he claimed to be senior to them in service. The petitioner has mentioned in the writ petition his seniority No. 216 in the order of merit as prepared by the Board but has not given the serial numbers of respondents 3 to 25. Since the decision of this case largely depends on this fact, I directed respondents 1 and 2 through their counsel to place before this Court the original select list as prepared by the Board and I adjourned the case for a day. The said list has not been produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, produced a list showing the names of respondents 3 to 25 along with their merit number as determined by the Board at the time of selection. A copy of this list has been placed on the file and is marked as Annexure-X. The learned counsel for the respondents did not challenge the correctness of this list and I am, therefore, proceeding on the basis that the petitioner was placed by the Board higher in merit than respondent Nos. 3 to 25.