PURAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The broad allegations made by the petitioner are that he was recruited to the post of Clerk as a result of selection by the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board in the year 1957 and actually joined as such on January 18, 1958. In the year 1961, in pursuance to an advertisement made by the Board the petitioner applied for the post of Steno-typist and was ultimately selected and appointed as such on November 15, 1961. Admittedly, he had applied for the post of Steno-typist as a Backward Class candidate. He was promoted as Junior Scale Stenographer on October 10, .1963 and thereafter as Senior Scale Stenographer on December 8, 1966. The petitioner was further promoted as Personal Assistant on May 15, 1974 and finally as Private Secretary on January 1, 1986. The grouse as made by the petitioner is that he was entitled to be promoted as Private Secretary somewhere in August 1980 as he belongs to Backward Classes and was selected as Steno-typist against the quota of Backward Classes, The representations made in that behalf were rejected on March 17, 1982 and he was conveyed about the rejection the same day.

(2.) The petitioner thereafter met the Chief Minister, Punjab who on October 15, 1982 observed in his note that before any decision is taken in the matter, the petitioner should be given a personal hearing by the Chief 'Secretary so that his contentions are also taken into consideration. The petitioner was consequently given personal hearing by the then Chief Secretary on December 3, 1982 when he gave a detailed representation of even date detailing all the points. This representation is Annexure P-12 to the writ petition. The Chief Secretary, after hearing the petitioner, directed the Joint Secretary, Secretariat Administration, who was also present there, to make out a detailed case after giving hearing to the petitioner. The Joint Secretary gave hearing to the petitioner on March 25, 1983 and for making decision in the matter, sent the case to the Social Welfare Department for advice on June 7, 1983. The Social Welfare Department vide its letter dated July 27, 1984 gave advice to the Secretariat Administration. The petitioner thereafter did not hear in the matter. In these circumstances, he was forced to file the present writ petition seeking relief as noticed above.

(3.) Written Statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it is nowhere stated therein as to what happened to the representation of petitioner handed over to the Chief Secretary and what was the out come of the hearing afforded to him by the Chief Secretary. It is also not indicated as to what order was passed by the Joint Secretary or any other higher authority after affording hearing to the petitioner. The only fact that finds mention in paras 28 to 30 of the written statement is that the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected. It is further stated therein that it was not considered necessary to send reply to the representation of the petitioner or the order of rejection thereof.