RESHAM SINGH PANDHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.7.2001 (Annexure P-13/T) passed by respondent No. 1, by which the claim of the petitioner for notional promotions on the posts of Assistant Registrar (Examinations) and Registrar w.e.f. 1.8.1993 and 1.9.1993 respectively, has been rejected. The petitioner also prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been promoted on the aforesaid two dates with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the petitioner joined as a Clerk in the Head Office of the Director of Public Instructions in the erstwhile State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union, on 27.8.1955. He retired as Superintendent Grade-I on 31.12.1994 from the office of DPI (Schools), Punjab, Chandigarh. At the time of retirement, he was drawing Rs. 3,700/- p.m. basic pay. The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Punjab Education Department (State Services, Class-II) Rules, 1965. Promotions under these rules are to be made on the basis of Seniority-cum-merit. The work and conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory throughout his service career and he was entitled to promotion in the normal course. On the basis of reservation of the posts in favour of Scheduled Castes/Backward Classes, the petitioner would have been entitled to promotion as Assistant Registrar (Examinations) w.e.f. 1.8.1993 and Registrar w.e.f. 1.9.1993.

(3.) After the decision in the case of Ajit Singh Janjua v. State of Punjab, 1995 6 SCC 684, Civil Appeal No. 3792-94 of 1989, decided on 1.3.1996, the State of Punjab issued instructions dated 9.10.1996 (Annexure P-6). It was notified in these instructions that in Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994, it is provided that inter se seniority of the persons appointed to posts in each cadre of service shall be determined by length of continuous service on such posts in that cadre of the service. This rule cannot be now applied in fixing of the seniority between reserved category and general category candidates in promoted category. It was further notified that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court has to be implemented while fixing the seniority of the reserved category candidates and general category candidates. It was decided by the Government that promotions made on or after 19.10.1982 are required to be reviewed. On review of the promotions, an order was passed on 22.11.1996 wherein the petitioner was recommended to be promoted on the post of Assistant Registrar on 1.8.1993 and Registrar on 1.9.1933. Relying on the aforesaid communication, the petitioner made representation on 3.7.2000 seeking notional promotions and fixation of his pay for the purposes of re- fixation of his pension. When no decision had been taken by the Government, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 16079 of 2000 which was decided on 24.11.2000 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and also the recommendation made by the Director and take the final decision thereon, in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. In obedience to the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondents have passed impugned order on 11.7.2001 (Annexure P-13/T). The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the instructions of the Government dated 1.3.1996 have to be applied prospectively. Since the petitioner retired on 31.12.1994, his case for promotion, even though recommended by the DPI, cannot be considered.