HARDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner a member of the Backward Classes, who is working as a Sectional Officer/Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch), claims a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-State to promote him to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer against a reserve point. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner qualified the Diploma-Course in Mechanical Engineering in July, 1970. He was selected and appointed as Sectional Officer (Mechanical) in the Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) on November 25, 1970. The petitioner claims that at the time of submission of application for the post of Sectional Officer he had indicated that the family income of the petitioner do not exceed Rs. 1,800/- per annum. He also claims to have mentioned that he belongs to the backward classes. It is averred that the seniority list of the Junior Engineers was issued by the Department in the year 1981. In this seniority list, the petitioner's name was mentioned at Sr. No. 298. The fact that the petitioner belonged to the category of backward classes was not mentioned. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation pointing out that he belongs to the category of backward classes. He claims that yet another representation was submitted in February 1983. In the meantime, the department promoted 19 Sectional Officers to the posts of Sub Divisional Officer vide orders dated March 6, 1982. Thereafter, another batch of 31 Sectional Officers was promoted vide order dated October 5, 1982. As a result, the petitioner claims that fifty persons had been promoted from the cadre of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) to that of Sub Divisional Engineer. He avers that according to the instructions issued by the Government vide letter dated May 4, 1974, reservation had been provided for matters of promotion to the posts in Class I and Class II services. It was also decided that in a lot of 100 vacancies, the persons belonging to the category of backward classes would be promoted to posts at Sr. Nos. 26 and 76. The petitioner claims that since no action was taken on his representation, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5950 of 1985. This petition was contested by the department on the ground that Kashmiri Lal and Bhagwan Dass, who were members of backward classes, were senior to the petitioner as their names were placed at Sr. Nos. 251 and 255 of the Seniority List, while that of the petitioner appeared at Sr. No. 298. In paragraph 15 of the petition, it has been averred that in spite of notice given by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 "has neither promoted the petitioner nor respondent Nos. 2 and 3". In fact respondent No. 2 is the Chief Engineer and nobody has been impleaded as respondent No. 3. On this factual premises, the petitioner has claimed that the share of the backward classes deserves to be given to him and the department should fill up the posts at Sr. Nos. 26 and 76 from amongst the members of the backward classes.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter alia averred that the points at Sr. Nos. 26 and 76 have been filled up by promoting S/Sh. Santokh Singh and Gurdev Singh, who were senior to the petitioner. It has been further pointed out that S/Sh. Kashmiri Lal & Bhagwan Dass, who were also members of backward class communities are senior to the petitioner. On this premises, it is claimed that the petitioner has no right and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It has been further pointed out that, in fact, five persons belonging to the backward classes had been promoted to the posts of Sub Divisional Officer (Mechanical). That being so, it is averred that the members of Backward Classes are adequately represented in the Service and no further reservation in their favour is called for. Rest of the averments have also been rebutted.