JAGDISH KUMAR KAPUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the short prayer of the petitioner is for ante-dating his date of promotion, that is, to be deemed to have been promoted on the post of Private Secretary with effect from 22nd Oct., 1981, the date when his juniors were promoted without considering the petitioner for such promotion, instead of 6th May, 1985, the date when the petitioner was actually promoted.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner joined service in the Punjab Civil Secretariat as Junior Scale Stenographer in Dec., 1960, and was later on promoted as Personal Assistant on 11th Jan., 1967. Respondent Nos. (sic) namely, Tarsem Lal Thapar and Ajit Singh Pahwa were promoted as Personal Assistants a couple of years later. On 24th Nov., 1980, some posts of Private Secretaries fell vacant and the petitioner was also promoted as Private Secretary in an officiating capacity for a period not exceeding six months. Later on, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Private Secretary to that of Personal Assistant on 13th Oct., 1983 and was again promoted as Private Secretary on 6th May, 1985. In the meantime, on 22nd Oct., 1981, respondents Tarsem Lal Thapar and Ajit Singh Pahwa were promoted as Private Secretaries, but the petitioner was not considered for promotion, obviously because he had already been working as Private Secretary with effect from 24th Nov., 1980, which promotion was for a period of six months. Since the petitioner was later on reverted on 13th Oct., 1983, he represented against the same by bringing to the notice of the authorities that the petitioner had been allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar by order dated 31st Oct., 1980, with effect from 1st Oct., 1980 hence, his reversion on the basis of any earlier reports, if any, was wholly untenable. The representation was, however, rejected on 16th Aug., 1990, whereupon the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) In the separate written statements filed by the State Government as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 10, though the factual position has been admitted, yet it has been emphasised that the reversion of the petitioner ordered on 13th Oct., 1983, could be justified on the ground that he had been awarded adverse remarks for the year 1975-76 and that there was considerable delay in filing the writ petition by the petitioner.