VINOD KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 22.7.2010 (Annexure P-2) and the order dated 15.2.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of a Steno Typist on 19.7.1975 and was promoted as Junior Scale Stenographer on 2.3.1988. The services of the petitioner is covered by the Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Service Class-III (First Amendment) Rules, 1999 (Annexure R-1) (hereinafter referred to as the '1999 Rules). Rule 8 of the 1999 Rules provides for the method of recruitment, educational and other qualifications for appointment to the service which shall be made in the manner specified in Appendix B to these Rules. Promotion to the post of Senior Assistant is dealt with under Clause 3 and 4 of the said Appendix, according to which, 25% posts are earmarked for direct recruitment and 75% posts for promotion. Persons eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant are the Junior Assistants who have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of one year and Junior Scale Stenographers who have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of five years. For the purpose of determining the eligibility, as and when a candidate fulfills the said period of service would become eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. He asserts that respondents No.3 to 14 were appointed as Clerks on various dates and were designated as Junior Assistants w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Eligibility for these respondents for consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant would be on completion of one year service as Junior Assistant which would, therefore, be 1.1.1997. Since the petitioner was promoted as a Junior Scale Stenographer on 2.3.1988, she would become eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on 2.3.1994.

(3.) Since the petitioner became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant prior to the private respondents, she had a prior right for consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant which process has not been followed by the respondents and they have proceeded to promote the private respondents on the ground that they are senior to the petitioner on the basis of length of service as the cadre of the Clerks and the Junior Assistants is one and it is merely a designation of Junior Assistant which has been granted to them. The petitioner, on promotion in the year 1988 would, therefore, be junior to the private respondents which the counsel for the petitioner contends is not the correct reading of the Rule which does not provide for any percentage of posts to be filled up from any source out of the two and under those circumstances it has to be a common seniority, which should be determined from the date the candidates, from both the sources, become eligible for promotion. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.