H.S. KHOSA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second round of litigation, we are concerned with the validity and proprietary of the orders dated 4.9.2000 passed by respondent No. 1 and it is to be judged as to whether these orders go contrary to the letter and spirit of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua & others v. State of Punjab, 1996 2 SCC 715 and Ajit Singh-II v. State of Punjab, 1999 7 JT 153 Before we take note of the principles of law laid in the aforesaid judgments by the Supreme Court, it will be imperative to note down factual background in which the controversy has arisen.

(2.) The petitioner, herein, is an employee of the Municipal Corporation in the State of Punjab. He was appointed as Assistant Corporation Engineer with effect from 26.11.1984. The respondent No. 3, who belongs to Scheduled Caste (SC) Category, also became Assistant Corporation Engineer to which post he was appointed on 12.12.1984. It is, thus, not in dispute that initial appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Corporation Engineer was before that of the respondent No. 3 and he was senior to the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 being an SC, got promotion to the higher post of Corporation Engineer before the petitioner because of availability of roster point meant for SC category candidates. He was promoted to this post on 14.12.1993, whereas the petitioner was promoted as Corporation Engineer, as per his own turn in the General Category, on 10.10.1999. However, since the petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 3 as per initial appointment, on promotion of the petitioner to the same post of Corporation Engineer to which respondent No. 3 was promoted earlier, on the application of "catch-up rule", the petitioner was again treated as senior to the respondent No. 3 as Corporation Engineer. For this reason, when the seniority-list of Corporation Engineers was prepared and circulated, the petitioner's name appeared at Sr. No. 10 in the said seniority list, whereas, the respondent No. 3 was shown at Sr. No. 12, treating him as junior to the petitioner.

(3.) Next promotion is to the post of Superintending Engineer. As per extant rules, 7 years' experience as Corporation Engineer is required for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The respondent No. 3 was promoted as Superintending Engineer with effect from 15.11.2000. According to the petitioner, since he was senior to the respondent No. 3, he could not have been ignored while promoting the respondent No. 3 as Superintending Engineer. He filed writ petition, which was registered as CWP-8100-2000, inter alia, seeking direction to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. In this writ petition orders dated July 04, 2000 were passed by the Division Bench of this Court, directing the respondents to consider representations of the petitioner which he had given in this behalf. Pursuant to these directions dated July 04, 2000, the official respondents passed orders dated September 04, 2000, rejecting the representation of the petitioner. It is this order which is impugned by filing the instant writ petition.