BHAGAT RAM Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein claims that the Punjab Department of Public Works (Building and Roads Branch) Circle Offices (Class III Ministerial) Service Rules. 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) Create and constitute one service and that the Respondents are not entitled to treat each circle as constituting a separate cadre and service. On this premises the Petitioner impugnes the promotions of Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 from the post of Senior Assistants to those of Superintendents Grade-II. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this controversy may be noticed.

(2.) The Petitioner was recruited as a Clerk in Bhatinda circle on December 12, 1961. He was promoted as a Senior Assistant in the same circle on May 14 1975. As against this, Respondent No. 3 was recruited as a clerk on September 10, 1955 in Patiala circle. Respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Clerk on May 7, 1956 in Sangrur circle. Respondent No. 5 was recruited as a Clerk in Bhatinda Circle after the petition on May 8, 1969. It may be added that he belongs to the category of scheduled caste. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 was promoted as a Senior Assistant in Patiala circle in the year 1978. Similarly, Respondent No. 4 was promoted as a Senior Assistant in Sangrur circle on June 20, 1975. Respondent No. 5 got promotion as. Senior Assistant on June 6, 1975. In the year 1991, Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 have been promoted as Superintendents Grade-II. While Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were promoted in their respective circles, Respondent No. 3 was initially promoted in Chandigarh circle but was later on reverted to Patiala circle in October 1991. Aggrieved by these promotions, the Petitioner has approached this Court. The promotions of Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as Superintendents Grade-II have been challenged primarily on the ground that the Petitioner having been promoted as Senior Assistant earlier than all of them, had a right to be considered for appointment to the post of Superintendent Grade-II prior to the Respondents.

(3.) Two separate written statements have been filed. In the written statement filed on behalf of the official Respondents viz. 1 and 2, it has been inter-alia averred that the post of Superintendent has to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Assistants of that circle and that a joint seniority list of the personnel working in different circles is not required to be prepared. With regard to Respondent No. 5, it has been explained that he was promoted in Bhatinda circle against a reserved vacancy in his parent circle. With regard to Respondent No. 3, it has been pointed out that he was promoted against the post of Patiala circle as a stop gap arrangement due to administrative reasons and that he has now been transferred back to his parent circle,--vide orders dated October 1, 1991. To similar effect are the averments made in the written statement filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.