DEV RAJ SALWAN Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dev Raj Salwan through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to finalise the tentative seniority list of Head Draftsmen issued on March 31, 1978 after disposing of the objections filed by him. He further prays that he be declared senior to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and respondent No. 1 be restrained from reverting him on the basis of erroneous seniority list.

(2.) The facts on which the relief aforesaid stems, reveal that petitioner, who is matriculate with diploma in Draftsman Civil from Industrial Training Institute, Amritsar which he obtained in the year 1962-63 applied for the post of Draftsman in the year 1964 to the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board) and was so selected. The Secretary of the Board sent the names of selected candidates to the Department vide letter dated June 6.10.1964. It is the case of petitioner that apart from some other candidates, respondents 3 to 5 were also selected for the aforesaid post alongwith him and his name was kept higher in merit than said respondent by the Board. Vide letter dated June 12, 1964, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, addressed a letter to the Superintending Engineer, Amritsar Drainage Circle, Amritsar, and the names of five selected Draftsmen including that of petitioner for issuing them appointment letters vide letter dated June 23, 1964, the Superintending Engineer, Amritsar wrote back to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, that though vide letter dated December 7, 1963 it was mentioned that five vacancies of Draftsmen were expected to occur during the year 1964-65 and a demand was placed for that purpose but due to heavy reduction in the drawing staff in other circles and clossing down of anti-waterlogging Division, the surplus Draftsmen were absorbed and, therefore, there was no vacancy to appoint the persons whose names were sent vide letter, Annexure P-1 Copy of letter dated June 23, 1964, has been placed on records as Annexure P-2. The name of petitioner, however, was again sent by the Chief Engineer vide letter dated July 31, 1964 and at this stage he was given appointment letter and he accordingly took over the charge of the post of Draftsman on August 25, 1964. The case of petitioner is that even though respondent Nos. 3 to 107 were juniors to him in the merit list prepared by the Board, they were appointed as Draftsmen on March 15, 1964, June 12, 1964 and June 23, 1964 respectively and that he alongwith private respondent was promoted as Head Draftsmen on May 11, 1977. A tentative seniority list was issued some time in April, 1978 of the Head Draftsmen showing the position as on March 31, 1978. However, no seniority list of Draftsmen was ever issued. In the seniority aforesaid, petitioner was shown junior to respondents 3 to 5 as Head Draftsman. The basis of showing him junior to them was that he was appointed on the post of Draftsman on August 25, 1968 i.e. after the appointment of respondents 3 to 5 on the post aforesaid. Whereas, petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 33, respondents 3 to 5 were shown at Sr. Nos. 30 to 32 respectively. This was, obviously, not to the liking of petitioner and, therefore, he submitted representation to the relevant quarters in May, 1978 and clamoured for his seniority over and above respondents 3 to 5 on the sole basis that in merit list of selected candidates, he was placed higher than them by the Board. When he received no reply, he followed his request contained in the representations aforesaid vide various reminders from June, 1978 to December, 1985. When the representation, referred to above, brought no tangible results, petitioner came to this Court asking for the relief as has been indicated in the earlier part of this judgment.

(3.) The cause of petitioner has been opposed and in the two sets of identical written statements, one filed by respondents 1 and 2 and the other by respondent 5, it has been mainly pleaded that there is absolutely no relevancy insofar as order of merit determined by the Board is concerned and it is the date of appointment which is relevant. Inasmuch as respondents 3 to 5 were appointed earlier in point of time than petitioner, they had to rank senior to him. While dealing with the case of respondent No. 3, respondents 1 and 2 in their written statement plead that he was originally appointed as Tracer and promoted as Draftsman on April 17, 1964. Insofar as respondents 4 and 5 are concerned, they were recommended by the Board for appointment as Draftsmen on June 4, 1964 whereas petitioner's name was initially recommended by the Board to the Irrigation Department on June 6.10.1964. That being so, petitioner could not claim seniority over and above respondents 3 to 5. It is further pleaded that seniority list of Draftsmen was issued in 1989 by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Circle, Patiala and by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Circle, Ferozepur, in 1972, prior to the seniority list of Circle Head Draftsmen circulated in the year 1978. Petitioner was given seniority as Circle Head Draftsman on the basis of seniority list of Draftsman already circulated by the Superintending Engineer. It is further the case of respondents that if petitioner had any grouse, he should have represented against the seniority lists of Draftsmen circulated in the years 1969 and 1972 which were prepared in accordance with Government circular dated March 15, 1962. It is further pleaded that the seniority was determined in accordance with the recommendations of the Board rightly. Whereas, the name of petitioner, on his own showing, was recommended by the Board to the Irrigation Department on June 10, 1964, names of respondents 4 and 5 were recommended on June 4, 1964.