CHANAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who is respondent No. 2 before this court filed a civil suit giving rise to the filing of the present appeal with the averments that he after passing out F.Sc Medical, passed graduation. He joined the service in the year 1970 as Wild Life Inspector. Chanan Singh appellant-defendant No. 2 was only a matriculate and not eligible for promotion as Wild Life Inspector. Chanan Singh joined as Wild Life Inspector from 18.7.1979 by way of stop-gap arrangement and that there were seven sanctioned posts of Wild Life Inspectors in the Punjab and by the appointment of the plaintiff on 3.6.1970 the 7th post was filled up by him. Chanan Singh on the joining of the plaintiff, instead of being reverted to the post of Wild Life Guard was his substantive post, was adjusted against the post of Farm Manager. It was further averred that Chanan Singh, and Saudagar Singh defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were granted selection grade as Wild Life Inspectors with effect from 18.9.1980 and 20.4.1982 despite the fact that they were juniors to the plaintiffs. Not only that, Chanan Singh was promoted as Wild Life Warden on ad hoc basis. Similarly, defendant No. 3 was also promoted. On the basis of the aforementioned facts the plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that office orders No. 173/CCF, dated 21.12.1981, No. 7/CCF, dated 19.4.1982, No. 7/CCF, dated 6.4.1983 issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Chandigarh, are illegal, void and not binding upon him. The plaintiff claimed a decree for declaration that he was entitled to be promoted in the selection grade with effect from 18.9.1990 and also as Wild Life Warden with effect from 19.4.1982 with all arrears of pay and allowances, etc. The claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants. The rival pleas of the parties gave rise for trail to the following issues :

(2.) Before dealing with the appeal of the defendants, it may be noticed in short that the appellate court has found that the plaintiff was directly appointed as Wild Life Inspector having requisite qualifications for a direct recruit to which reference has been made in the opening part of the judgment in accordance with rule 8 of the Punjab Wild Life Preservation Department Class III Service Rules, 1959 (for short the rules). It was found that the plaintiff could be appointed as direct recruit in the proportion of 50 : 50 on the basis of rule 9 of the rules. No force was found in the contention of the plaintiff that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were not eligible for promotion. The first appellate court found that no adverse remarks were conveyed to the plaintiff, no record was produced nor any punishment, warning or censure was ever awarded to the plaintiff. The appellate court on the basis of Exh.P-5 a seniority list prepared on 4.6.70 - found that the plaintiff's name was very much there. After placing reliance upon the case law that adverse confidential reports could not be acted upon if they are not communicated to the concerned government employee for denying him promotional opportunities, the appellate court set aside the finding of the trial Court to the effect that the plaintiff was not entitled to promotion. In other words, the plaintiff was held entitled to promotion as mentioned in paragraph 14 of the judgment. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have filed the present regular second appeal before this court.

(3.) It is clear from the narration of the findings recorded by the appellate Court that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have not been affected by the judgment and decree of the appellate court. On the other hand, the argument of the plaintiff against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was repelled by the appellate Court in so many words by recording the following observations :