PREM SINGH MITTAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction seeking quashing of order Annexures P -13, P -15 and P -19 with a further direction to the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of District Treasury Officer from the date persons junior to him were promoted along with all other attendant benefits.

(2.) AS per averments made in the petition, the petitioner was selected as Assistant Treasury Officer (now designated as Treasury Officer) by the Punjab Public Service Commission and was at serial No. 1 in the merit list. He joined the service on 24.11.1972 and was posted at Sub Treasury at Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. He successfully completed the probationary period of two years and was allowed to cross first efficiency bar from 1.1.1980 vide order dated 9.5.1980 Annexure P -1. He was confirmed as Assistant Treasury Officer (now Treasury Officer) on 3.10.1980. It is during the year 1982 -83 that some adverse remarks in his annual confidential report were conveyed to which the petitioner filed representation on 7.10.1983 which was rejected on 21.12.1982 by a cryptic order "considered and rejected". and that too after a gap of nine years. The petitioners further contends that he was allowed to cross the second efficiency bar from 1.4.1984 and was given a selection grade vide order dated 31.8.1988 - Annexures P -6. But despite this, the respondents choose to promote persons junior to him on 19.11.1991. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner submitted two representations to the government on 6.12.1991 and 22.2.1992 to consider his case as well since the petitioner had good record of service and was entitled to be promoted. Though these representations were pending, the government vide another order dated 28/30.5.1992, Annexure P -11, promoted some more juniors which action the petitioner termed as arbitrary. Still another registered notice through counsel and representation was sent to the concerned authorities but with no effect. It is with a view to get rid of wholly unjust and illegal orders Annexures P -13, P -15 and P -19 the petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashing and the consequential relief.

(3.) PURSUANCE to the notice of motion issued, respondents have put in appearance and filed written statement. The respondents besides controverting the various averments made in the petition have taken some preliminary objections which are (i) that the relief sought by the petitioner i.e. promotion when persons junior to him were promoted required consultation by the Public Service Commission; (ii) that the assertion of the petitioner that the government rejected his case for promotion at its own level without referring the same to the Public Service Commission is wrong. The Government while passing order on 19.11.1991 to promote Sarv Sh. Yuv Raj Jaitly and Shian Singh as District Treasury Officer, the Government requested the Public Service Commission to accord approval to the promotion of these persons and ignoring the case of the petitioner as well as of one Mr. M.L. Mehta. This way Sarv Sh. Yug Raj Jaitly and Shian Singh were promoted on ad hoc basis. The approval of the Public Service Commission is still awaited. This way the petitioner's contention that his case was not referred to the Public Service Commission is wrong; and (iii) The government can validly take into consideration the record of the petitioner's service for the year 1973 -74 and 1983 as well while considering his case of promotion. On merit, it was stated that the petitioner's case was duly considered on both the occasions when the persons junior to him were promoted i.e. on 19.11.1991 and 28/30.5.1992 but was not found fit for promotion to the post of District Treasury Officer by the committee. With a view to seek concurrence from the Public Service Commission the respondents have already submitted the annual confidential reports of the petitioner for its perusal which is still under consideration.