AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and was appointed as Works Manager on regular basis w.e.f. 6.9.1976 in the department of Transport, Punjab. Since certain enquiries were pending against the petitioner, persons junior to petitioner were promoted as General Manager. Petitioner approached the concerned authorities with a request that his name be also considered against the reserved category as well as candidate of general category as persons junior to him in the reserved category as well as general category have been promoted as General Managers. Consequent upon this representation, petitioner was promoted to the post of General Manager on 14.3.1987 on ad hoc basis and without prejudice to the pending enquiry. It is claimed by the petitioner that he has already been exonerated from the departmental enquiry vide Punjab Government orders dated 27.6.1986 and 18.9.1987 Annexures P/6 and P/7 respectively to the writ petition. Vide order dated 10.10.1988 Annexure P/9 to the writ petition, petitioner was reverted as Works Manager. Petitioner approached this Court against the order Annexure P/9 inter alia on the ground that he being a scheduled caste employer was promoted as General Manager on ad hoc basis and since then he has been working as such and petitioner has been reverted to the post of Works Manager vide order Annexure P/9 which does not contain any reason for such an action. It is further stated that persons junior to the petitioner have been retained as General Manager whereas the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Works Manager. It is stated that there are still vacancies of General Managers, and earlier two scheduled caste employees had retired and their vacancies are still to be filled up and that petitioner should be considered against the vacancies available for scheduled caste as well as against the general category on the basis of seniority.

(2.) Stand taken in the return filed by the State of Punjab was that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis with the terms and conditions that his services could be terminated at any time. It has further been stated that certain record of the petitioner was bad and that is why he has been reverted to his original post of Works Manager.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that services of the petitioner could not be terminated simply on the ground that he was appointed on ad hoc basis when persons junior to him have been retained in service. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and that act and conduct of the petitioner as General Manager has not been found to be bad, bad record which is being referred to by the State in the written statement pertains to the period prior to the promotion of the petitioner as General Manager and was in the knowledge of the State Government at the time when the petitioner was promoted as General Manager.