BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of one of the Scheduled Castes recognised in the State of Punjab. He joined service as a Clerk in the Planning Department of the State of Punjab on 23rd April, 1970, and was promoted as Steno-Typist on 1st September, 1972. He was later on promoted as Junior Scale Stenographer on 10th August, 1976. On 29th January, 1979, Narinder Pal Singh (respondent No. 4) was promoted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. The claim of the petitioner for promotion against this post was not considered, as it was thought that the post was to be offered to a member of the Backward Class and respondent No. 4 being a member of the Backward Class, was promoted. A couple of years later, on 19th March, 1981, Jiwan Lal, respondent No. 5, who also a Junior Scale Stenographer like the petitioner, was promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer, and the claim of the petitioner was again not considered. The representations made by the petitioner in this behalf did not succeed in having the grievance of the petitioner redressed. Ultimately, he had to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the writ petition on 1st April, 1981.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the Economic Adviser to Government, Punjab, respondent No. 3 though the factual position has been admitted, yet the petitioner is sought to be non-suited by pleading that he did not fulfil the condition of three years experience as Junior Scale Stenographer which was a requirement provided in the draft Service Rules. So far as the promotion of respondent No. 5, Jiwan Lal is concerned, according to the written statement, he was promoted on seniority-cum-merit basis in accordance with the service rules. It has also been stated in the written statement that "as and when point No. 6 (reserved for Scheduled Casts) in the roster maintained in the department for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer is available for being filed up, the claim of the petitioner will be considered on merits as per service Rules". In this regard, one para from the written statement is reproduced hereunder to pinpoint the position taken by the respondents :-

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that since the petitioner had been promoted a Junior Scale Stenographer vide order dated 10th August, 1976, he had completed three years' service as Junior Scale Stenographer in August, 1979. Therefore, if he could not be promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer on 29th January, 1979, when he had not completed three years' service as Junior Scale Stenographer, the promotion of Narinder Pal Singh, respondent No. 4, could not be challenged by the petitioner. But as the petitioner acquire eligibility for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer in August, 1979, he was entitled to be considered for promotion against the vacancy arising thereafter. The roster should have been regulated to accommodate the member of the Scheduled Caste who could not be promoted in January, 1979, when Narinder Pal Singh, respondent No. 4, had been promoted, especially when according to the para of the written statement reproduced above, the reserved point meant for members of the Scheduled Caste had been taken away on interchangeability basis. Now, since more than a decade has passed when the aforesaid interchangeability of the roster point had taken place, it will be unfair to reshuffle the promotion and seniority of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. However, in order to comply with the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution and the constitutional instructions issued under clause (4) of this Article, and to adequately meet the ends of justice, the only course left is that the petitioner shall be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on the basis of his service record as in existence on 19th March, 1981, when Jiwan Lal, respondent No. 5, was promoted. If, on the basis of service record of the petitioner, he is found fit to be promoted, a supernumerary post for his promotion as Senior Scale Stenographer shall be created, and the petitioner promoted retrospectively with effect from 19th March, 1981, the date when respondent No. 5 was promoted; and on such promotion, he shall also be entitled to the arrears of salary and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he been promoted in the first instance with effect from 19th March, 1981.