VINOD MATTO Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court impugning the order dated 20.6.2011 (Annexure P -9) vide which legal notice served by the petitioner upon the respondents stands decided rejecting his claim for seeking seniority over and above the other reserve category candidates who belong to the feeder cadre and have been promoted prior to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Sub -Divisional Officer, Panchayati Raj. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that as per the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab dated 22.10.1999 while implementing judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua II v. State of Punjab and others, : 1999 (4) S.C.T. 1 : JT 1999 (7) SC 159, it has been mentioned that the roster point promoters (reserved category) will not be entitled to counting of seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation in the promoted post, vis -a -vis the general category candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and were promoted later. Counsel while referring to Annexure P -1, on this basis, contends that Raghbir Chand, Bant Singh, G.K. Sultana and Karnail Singh whose names find mention at serial No. 21, 22, 25 and 28 respectively in the final seniority list of Sub -Divisional Officers as on 1.1.2000 would rank junior to the petitioner whose name finds mention at serial No. 39 of the seniority list after promotion of Rajinder Pal Singh whose name is mentioned at serial No. 48 and belongs to the general category as Sub -Divisional Engineer from the post of Junior Engineer and was senior to the persons against whom petitioner is seeking seniority.

(2.) THIS contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the principle as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Janjua II (supra), applies to a situation where the employees of the reserved category and general category belong to the same feeder cadre and where a reserved category employee has been promoted on the roster point irrespective of his seniority vis -a -vis the general category employee. The position of petitioner in the present case is different. Raghbir Chand, Bant Singh, G.K. Sultana and Karnail Singh are Scheduled Caste candidates and, therefore, fall in the reserved category. They were working as Junior Engineers and on the basis of roster point, they were promoted to the posts of Sub -Divisional Officers in the year 1993 and 1994 respectively. Karnail Singh, who is the junior most among the Scheduled Caste Sub -Divisional Officers, was promoted on 27.6.1994. Petitioner Vinod Matto, who also belongs to the Schedules Caste category, was appointed as a direct Sub -Divisional Officer on 19.8.1994. On the date when the petitioner came into service and joined as a Sub -Divisional Officer, all these four officers were already holding the post of Sub -Divisional Officers and, therefore, cannot be termed as juniors to the petitioner merely because Rajinder Pal Singh, who belongs to general category and was senior to Raghbir Chand, Bant Singh, G.K. Sultana and Karnail Singh as a Junior Engineer, stands promoted to the post of Sub -Divisional Officer on 10.7.1997 which is subsequent to the date of appointment of the petitioner as a Sub -Divisional Officer. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court and the policy instructions dated 22.10.1999, Rajinder Pal Singh would rank senior to Raghbir Chand, Bant Singh, G.K. Sultana and Karnail Singh but it will not have converse effect of bringing down these four reserved category candidates below Vinod Matto -petitioner. Seniority between the Scheduled Caste candidates and that too who have their source of reaching the cadre different cannot be equated in the light of these instructions. The claim as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition has been rightly considered and decided by the respondents vide impugned order dated 20.6.2011 (Annexure P -9).