SURINDER SINGH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper book.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the promotion of respondent No.4 on the ground that she is not eligible for being appointed on the post of Assistant Director (Biology). According to the petitioner, at present there are seven Divisions i.e. Divisions of Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Ballistics, Toxicology, Serology and Documents. Each Department is headed by an Assistant Director. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no inter-changeability between the seven departments. Therefore, the post of Assistant Director (Biology) could only be filled by a person having M.Sc. Ist or IInd Class in Zoology, Botany, Bio-chemistry. Forensic Science or equivalent with seven years experience in analytical methods. This post could also be filled by promotion by Scientific Officer with five years experience in Biology/Serology Division. Since the Department has not framed any, statutory service rules, the Draft Service Rules are being treated as executive instructions. Prior to the promotion of respondent No.4 on the post of Assistant Director (Biology), all posts of Assistant Directors had been filled on the basis of the speciality in which the officers are working. According to the learned counsel, there is no common seniority of Scientific Officers working in different Sections of the Laboratory. This, according to the learned counsel, has been the consistent stand taken by the respondent-department. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that respondent No.4 has been working in Document Department, and therefore, she does not have the necessary experience in Biology/Serology Division.

(3.) Respondents No.1 to 3 in the written statement have clearly stated that the posts of Assistant Officer are interchangeable. The departmental promotion Committee met on 7.6.2000. The case of the petitioner for promotion was considered. He was, however, not recommended for promotion. On the other hand, the record of respondent No.4 is stated to be far superior.