KULWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no representation for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents are present. The case is of the year 1992 and I proceed to dispose off the case on merits on the basis of records in the light of the pleadings and after hearing the submissions of the counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE writ petition challenges the order issued on 31.03.1992 in so far as it directs the respondents 3 to 5 to be promoted to Class-II service which, according to the petitioner, was wrong, since by virtue of an earlier order of joining on 08.08.1980, he must be treated as senior to respondents 3 to 5, who had joined respectively on 20.02.1981, 11.08.1980 and 20.02.1981. This claim of the petitioner is contested by the respondents by stating that the petitioner and the private respondents were selected through a common selection process by the Subordinate Service Selection Board which issued the results on 02.05.1977 appointing the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 to 5 as Assistant Public Relation Officers. THE results also disclosed the order of merit and in that order, the respondents 3 to 5 have been shown as higher in the order of merit to the petitioner. This list was issued taking into account the posts, which were reserved for scheduled caste category. THE petitioner belonged to the scheduled caste category. In the merit list that determined the seniority issued on 02.05.1977 after taking note of the reservation policy, the 3rd respondent was placed at serial No.2, the 4th respondent had been placed at serial No.5 and the 5th respondent had been placed at serial No.6, while the petitioner had been placed under serial No.9.

(3.) THE respondents would, therefore, contend that the private respondents 3 to 5, who had been placed higher in the order of merit that came through a single selection process were to be treated as seniors although the respective dates when they actually took their posts were different and it so happened that the petitioner could join earlier to the private respondents 3 to 5. THE claim for promotion on the basis that the petitioner was senior to the respondents 3 to 5 cannot, therefore, be countenanced as tenable. THEre is no error in the impugned order to make it susceptible for judicial intervention.