KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this court by way of present writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Draftsman w.e.f. the date his junior was promoted. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to his appointment as a Tracer in the respondent -department, petitioner joined on 3.9.1975 on permanent basis. At that point of time, the qualification was matriculation and petitioner was fully eligible for appointment as Tracer. Later on, vide notification dated 19.2.1990 (Annexure P -1) post of Tracer came to be redesignated as Junior Draftsman, raising the qualification to matriculation with two years Industrial Training Institute Certificate of Draftsman. There was nothing objectionable against the petitioner about his work and conduct. After re -designation of the post of Tracer as Junior Draftsman, petitioner kept on working on the post of Junior Draftsman. Respondents never asked the petitioner to pass the two years ITI certificate of Draftsman and he was allowed to continue in service as Junior Draftsman. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 114 of the seniority list, whereas respondent No. 4 was at Sr. No. 199. Although, respondent No. 4 was promoted as Draftsman, but petitioner was not considered for promotion on the ground that he was not ITI diploma holder. Petitioner represented vide his representations dated 22.7.1991 (Annexure P -2) and 5.11.1992 (Annexure P -3), however, no order was passed by the competent authority. Having been left with no other option, petitioner approached this court by way of instant writ petition.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. Vide order dated 30.8.1994, a Division Bench of this court admitted the writ petition for regular hearing. That is how, this court is seized of the matter.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the State submits that when the notification Annexure P -1 is read as a whole, petitioner was not eligible for promotion. He further submits that criteria for promotion was not seniority alone, but it was seniority -cum -merit. Once the petitioner was not eligible for promotion, the writ petition was misconceived. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.