MOTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second round of litigation foisted upon the petitioner on account of patently illegal and arbitrary order dated 27.6.1987 (Annexure P7) and 16.7.1986/17.7.1986/4.5.1987 (Annexure P9) passed by Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab (respondent No. 2) vide which the dates of his promotion to the posts of Superintendent Grade-I (SG-I) and Superintendent Grade-III (SG-III) respectively, were revised to his prejudice.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste. He was initially appointed as Clerk in the office of respondent No. 2. In the course of service, he was promoted as Assistant. In 1976, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 1889 of 1976 claiming refixation of his seniority above Shri Dev Raj Birdi by contending that the latter had wrongly been placed above him in the seniority list dated 29.3.1976. During the pendency of that petition, the department refixed the petitioner's seniority above Dev Raj Birdi and by taking into consideration that fact, a learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the direction to respondent No. 2 to consider his claim for promotion w.e.f. the date his junior, namely, Dev Raj Birdi was promoted. The relevant extract of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced below :-

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been averred that the petitioner's challenge to order Annexures P7 and P9 should be negatived because he has not challenged the seniority of Assistants circulated vide order dated 8.9.1983 (Annexure R2). They have further averred that on account of revision of the seniority of Assistants the petitioner's position had been down-graded necessitating revision of the dates of his officiating promotion as SG-III and SG-I which were provisional in character and were subject to the implementation of order dated 9.3.1983 passed in C.W.P. No. 4536 of 1976. However, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not controverted the petitioner's assertion that L.P.A. No. 370 of 1983 filed against order dated 1.3.1983 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 1889 of 1976 filed by him had been dismissed by the Division Bench and S.L.P. No. 8571 of 1983 filed against the order of the Division Bench was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4.12.1989. They have also not disputed that before passing the impugned orders, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.