SURINDER LAL RAJU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was a Clerk in the office of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, seeks for consideration of his claim for appointment to the post as Excise and Taxation Officer and a further declaration that the private respondents 3 and 4, who had been holding posts as Accountants in the office of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, are not entitled to appointment by transfer under the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department (State Service III-A) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called as, '1956 Rules').

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he had been appointed as a Peon on 01.07.1965 in the office of the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, second respondent herein, and subsequent to his initial appointment, he had passed his matriculation examination in the year 1968. As per the instructions issued by the State on 25.04.1972, there was 10% quota for promotion from Class-IV posts of persons, who had completed their matriculations. THE petitioner had been promoted by virtue of the instructions to the post of a Clerk on 09.06.1972. THE initial order of appointment was as a temporary Clerk, but his services were regularized subsequently on 23.04.1983 w.e.f. 01.04.1977. THE petitioner would urge that it ought to have been given effect from 09.06.1972 itself instead of from the year 1977.

(3.) THE averment in the petition would further disclose that even in the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department Subordinate Offices (Ministerial) Class-III Service Rules, 1964, the post of Accountant was not a post belonging to the ministerial establishment of the Excise and Taxation Department. Consequently, the respondents 3 and 4 could not have been appointed to the post of Excise and Taxation Officers. THE petitioner would point out that respondents 3 and 4 themselves had been members of the cadre of Clerks before their appointment as Accountants. THE petitioner himself was borne in the same division and he had been actually senior to the respondents 3 and 4 in the cadre of Clerks. THE seniority list had been issued on 31.03.1983 followed by another seniority list issued on 31.12.1987. THE latter seniority list was actually circulated only on 01.10.1989 and it had wrongly shown respondents 3 and 4 as seniors at serial No.231 and 232, while it recorded the petitioner at serial No.254. Respondents 3 and 4 had themselves joined the cadre of Clerks only w.e.f. 19.02. 1977, while the petitioner had been holding the post of a Clerk w.e.f. 09.06.1972. THE seniority list for the year 1989 was not finalized and as such, the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to be treated as senior to the respondents 3 and 4 even in the ministerial cadre. THE tentative seniority list drawn in the year 1989 was erroneous and the appointment could not have been offered to respondents 3 and 4 on that basis.