JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only controversy raised in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Store Purchase Officer with effect from March 25, 1988 or from a later date when respondent No. 4, a person junior to him was prompted ignoring his claim.

(2.) It is not necessary to notice the facts in detail. A post of Store Purchaser Officer fell vacant which was to be filled by promotion from amongst the Superintendents in the department. Admittedly, at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Superintendent Grade I whereas respondent No. 4 was working as Superintendent Grade III. The petitioner was senior to respondent No. 4 in the seniority list of the Superintendents. The persons senior to the petitioner were not eligible for promotion for want of the requisite educational qualifications. Even otherwise, two of them retired and the third was promoted as Manager, Typewriter workshop with effect from April 1, 1988, a pot which is equal to the post of the Store Purchaser officer, it is how the petitioner came to be at serial No. 1 in the seniority list of the Superintendents, Respondent No. 4 was promoted as Store Purchase Officer vide letter dated march 25, 1988 initially for a period of six months on dhoc basis. He was given extension on two occasions and ultimately the public Service Commission gave its consent and respondent No. 4 was appointed as Store Purchase Officer in an officiating capacity with effect from March 29,1988. The grouse of the petitioner is that his case for promotion to the post of Store purchaser officer was not considered while promoting respondent No. 4 on regular basis.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents, it is not disputed that the petitioner was senior most person and eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of the Store Purchase Officer, The case set up by the respondents, however, is that the petitioner was not considered for promotion as he had given in writing that he should be promoted on regular basis and should not be reverted at any time. The further stand of the respondents is that a letter was sent to the petitioner seeking his consent for promotion to the post of Store Purchase Officer but he returned the said letter with the remarks that he should be promoted on regular basis and should not be reverted. As this condition was not acceptable, the petitioner was not considered and promoted.