HARMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Harmeet Singh, Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Kotkapura through this writ petition has sought a writ of mandamus against the respondents seeking directions that respondents be directed to give deemed date of promotion to him to the post of Assistant Engineer.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he has not been considered for promotion to the post of S.D.O. from the date when the post was available with the Board and it has been given to a person, who is similarly situated, in the year 1992 vide order dated 14.2.1992 w.e.f. 23.6.1986. According to the petitioner, after passing his diploma in Civil Engineering he joined as Sectional Officer in Market Committee, Fazilka. Therafter, he was absorbed as Sectional officer in the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board w.e.f 28.3.974. For the promotional post of S.D.O. the promotion policy of the Board was that the persons holding B.Sc. degree in Civil Engineering or diploma with 10 years experience on the substantive post of Sectional officer shall be considered. The petitioner was eligible to the post of S.D.O. in the year 1977 as he had completed 10 years on the post of Sectional officer. In the year 1978, one post of S.D.O. fell vacant and the petitioner was eligible for the same. He made a representation on 21.8.1978 but was not promoted. He was informed verbally that he would be promoted in due course. Again in the year 1979 sanction for the additional posts was given by the State of Punjab in the respondent-Board vide office memo dated 14.2.1979. Respondent No. 1 sanctioned 10 posts of Sub Divisional Engineers (Civil) and one post of S.D.O. in Public Health Division and the quota for recruitment to the post of S.D.O. was also provided vide this memo. It was clearly mentioned that 25% of the posts to be filled up by way of promotion from the lower post and if a person from the lower post is not available for promotion, only then it may be filled up by way of direct recruitment of by way of deputation. According to the petitioner at least 3 posts of S.D.O. fell to the share of the promote quota but these posts were not given to them. The Board used to fill these posts by direct recruitment or by way of deputation. The petitioner made a representation that he being the senior most Sectional Office with unblemished record should be considered for promotion to the post of S.D.O. but to no effect. In the year 1958 a joint seniority list was circulated. The person mentioned at Sr. No. 1 namely Sham Lal, who was similarly situated like the petitioner, was given promotion w.e.f. 23.6.1981 but the same has been denied to the petitioner without any reason. Similarly, Harjit Singh Bawa, who was shown at Sr. No. 10, was promoted to the post of S.D.O. w.e.f. 1.9.1989. As the person junior to the petitioner was promoted and the petitioner was not promoted w.e.f. 1.9.1989, therefore, he made a representation on 18.9.1989. It is also the case of the petitioner that subsequently he was promoted on 24.11.1990 but he has not been promoted from the deemed date for the reasons best known to the respondent. The petitioner further alleges that he has come to know the reason for his ignoring to the post of S.D.O., because he has not passed the departmental test which was prescribed by the notification dated 2.5.1988 vide which the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board's (Class-II) Service Rules, 1988 were promulgated. In short, the case set up by the petitioner is that posts were created in the year 1979 i.e. on 14.2.1979 and 3 posts fell to the promotes quota. Therefore, he should have been deemed to have been promoted from 1979 instead of 24.11.1990. Secondly, his case is that one Shri Sham Lal has been promoted w.e.f 1981, therefore, he should also be considered for promotion at least from 1981 when similarly situated person like Shri Sham Lal was given the promotion.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents, who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. The respondents have cogently explained in the written statement by stating that Shri Sham Lal, Sectional Officer was senior to the petitioner. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 1.9.1989. Subsequently the Government sanctioned a temporary post of Assistant Engineer for him w.e.f. 23.6.1981. This was done keeping in view the special circumstances of the case because Shri Sham Lal was earlier charge sheeted in the year 1974. His case was decided in the year 1986 and he was given a simple warning. His promotion was delayed only because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. He was exonerated. Therefore, he made a request that he may be given promotion from the back date. After considering the request of Shri Sham Lal the Government decided to give him promotion as Assistant Engineer from 23.6.1981. Against the promotion of Shri Sham Lal, one Shri Darshan Singh filed a writ petition and, therefore, promotion to Shri Sham Lal from back date had been stayed. With regard to the other stand, it was observed by the respondents that no Junior Engineer was promoted after the issuance of 1979 instructions till the notification of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class-II) Rules, 1988. The quota on which the petitioner is placing reliance, was never strictly observed and the Board used to fill up the posts of Sub Divisional Engineers either by taking persons on deputation or by making direct recruitment. Thus the stand of the respondents is two-fold-that with the creation of posts the petitioner does not get a right of promotion; and secondly, the case of Shri Sham Lal cannot be considered at para in order to give benefit to the petitioner. It was also submitted by the respondents equating the case of the petitioner that Shri Harjit Singh Bawa although was junior to the petitioner but was promoted on account of his passing the departmental test, whereas the petitioner did not pass the departmental test. The petitioner was facing the disciplinary proceedings in which he was given the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The vacancies of Sub Divisional Engineers prior to the notification of 1988 were filled either by making direct recruitment or by taking persons on deputation no Junior Engineer of the Board was promoted on a regular basis against any such vacancy. With this defence the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.