ANSHU THAKAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are working as Supervisors in the offices of Child Development Project Officers (for short 'C.D.P.Os.) under the Department of Social Welfare, Punjab, have filed present writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other order or directions quashing the promotions of Respondent Nos. 4 to 17 as C.D.P.Os., and for issuance of directions to the official respondents for filling in the remaining 16 posts in accordance with promotion quota etc. etc.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that their service conditions are governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules and the authorities of the department are following the departmental instructions for the purpose of promotion from the post of Supervisor to the post of C.D.P.O. Further case of the petitioner is that Integrated Child Development Scheme is a Centrally- sponsored scheme expenditure of which is met by Government of India and the promotions etc. of the staff are made under the instructions issued by the Government of India and duly adopted by the State Government. The petitioners have relied upon the instructions of Government of India dated 1.1.1975 as per which the C.D.P.O. should be preferable and as far as possible be lady officer. The supervisor (Mukhya Sewika) should be the Lady Officer. It is also the case of the petitioners that they are supervisors (Mukhya Sewikas) and possess all the prescribed qualifications for the post of supervisors. They have also relied upon the seniority list of the supervisors upto April, 1985, and claimed that they being senior most supervisors are eligible for promotion to the post of C.D.P.Os. The seniority list is Annexure P-1.

(3.) It is also the case of the petitioners that one Mrs. Daljit Kaur at Sr. No. 1 of the seniority list was promoted as C.D.P.O. vide order dated 29.6.1987 (Annexure P-2) illegally. However, the petitioners are not challenging the said orders as it pertains to the year 1987. It is further averred by the petitioners that they filed representations but to no effect. Their claim is that supervisors are to be given promotion as per quota prescribed. They have relied upon letter dated 9.2.1984 (Annexure P-5) vide which the directions were issued that post of C.D.P.O. should be filled in by way of quota. As per petitioners, quota was fixed for promotees as 33% and for direct recruitment as 66%. They have relied upon the various instructions contained in the booklet issued by the Government of India.