B.K. SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the Indian Administrative Service in the year 1977. He was promoted to the scale of Financial Commissioner on 8.1.2004. On 12.10.2009, the petitioner was promoted to the grade of Chief Secretary. Services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training for appointment as Chairman, Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board') in terms of order dated 16.3.2012. It has been pleaded that in terms of order dated 21.3.2012, the petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Board under the provisions of the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred as '1992 Act'). The petitioner is stated to have taken over the charge of the office of the Chairman of the Board on 27.3.2012. Vide order dated 20.4.2012, the petitioner has been transferred and posted as Financial Commissioner (Appeals-1) against a vacant post.

(2.) The challenge in terms of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 20.4.2012, Annexure P4. It has been asserted that such impugned order dated 20.4.2012 has been passed in contravention of the statutory provisions of 1992 Act apart from raising other grounds of challenge.

(3.) Upon notice of motion having been issued, a reply of the Special Secretary, Personnel, Punjab on behalf of respondent No.1 was filed. Such reply was adopted by respondent No.2. In terms thereof, a stand has been taken that the petitioner had merely been posted as the Chairman of the Board and since no Gazette notification had been issued, the petitioner had never been appointed as the Chairman of the Board in the light of Section 21 of the 1992 Act. It has also been stated that even with respect to the predecessor of the petitioner i.e. Shri Karan A.Singh, IAS as also Shri GS Cheema, IAS, simple posting orders as Chairman of the Board had been issued and thereafter, the aforementioned officials had also been transferred from such post. Still further, the instance of Professor (Ms.)Sushil Mahajan was also cited who had been appointed as Chairperson of the Board in terms of issuance of a Gazette notification under sub section (1) Clause 5 of Section 21 of the 1992 Act (Annexure R3, along with reply). In the case of such appointment, specific terms and conditions had been stipulated in the notification itself. In a nut shell, the stand taken by the State is that the petitioner had been merely posted as the Chairman of the Board and the impugned order cannot be construed as an order of removal but it is merely an order of transfer of the petitioner.