BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was recruited as a Peon in the office of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur, is aggrieved by the orders dated January 30, 1980, by which he was allocated to the office of the Director, State Transport, Punjab and his consequential posting vide order dated February 2, 1980. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On October 23, 1979, the State government decided to bifurcate the Department of Transport into two separate wings, viz. Commercial and Non-Commercial. The Commercial Wing was to be headed by the Director, State Transport while the State Transport Commissioner was to be the Head of the Non Commercial Wing. The employees were asked to submit their options within 15 days of the issue of this order. The criteria for allocation had also been laid down by the Government. It was inter-alia provided that "the employees shall be allocated according to their options. If the number of posts is less than the number of optees for a particular wing, junior persons in excess of the number of posts will be sent to the other wing." The petitioner exercised his option. The mater was considered by the competent authority. Vide order dated January 30, 1980, he was informed of his allocation to the office of the Director State Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh. Consequential posting orders were issued vide letter dated February 2, 1980. Copies of these two orders have been appended as Anuexures P.6 and P.7 with the writ petition. The petitioner impugns his allocation to the Commercial Wing primarily on the ground that persons junior to him have been allocated to the Non-Commercial Wing while he is being forced to work in the Commercial Wing.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter-alia pointed out that the petitioner was the junior-most person out of those who had opted for the non-Commercial Wing and consequently he had to be allocated to the Commercial Wing. It has been further averred that Respondents Nos. 3,5, and 6 were senior to the petitioner and were retained in the Non-Commercial Wing in accordance with the instructions, of the Government. With regard to Respondent No. 4, it has been averred that he was "working against leave vacancy of Sh. Swaran Singh, Peon who is senior to the petitioner." On these premises, the respondents have controverted the claim made by the petitioner.