WARYAM SINGH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to consider him for the post of Additional Director, Public Relations, against the post of Press Secretary to Chief Minister w.e.f. 22.1.1988 when respondent No. 4 junior to the petitioner was promoted as Joint Director by downgrading the post w.e.f. 28.3.83 as Additional Director, Public Relations, and w.e.f. 4.4.1979 as Joint Director when respondent No. 2 another junior officer has been promoted in these capacities in an illegal manner.

(2.) Originally, civil writ petition was filed on 9.12.1988. In pursuance to the notice of motion issued by the Court, written statement was filed by respondent No. 1 stating therein that the petition is pre-mature as the alleged representation filed by the petitioner is under consideration. Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 23.1.1989 directed respondent No. 1 to dispose of the said representation by passing a speaking order within one month from the date of hearing and to place a copy of that order on the record by the next date of hearing i.e. 27.3.1989. The petitioner was also directed to place on record the appointment order as Joint Director (Press) by the next date of hearing. The official respondent considered the representation which was pending and disposed of vide Annexure P-1 dated 22.2.1989 rejecting the various contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation by passing a speaking order. With a view to assail the order Annexure P-1 and the consequential changes to be incorporated in the writ petition, amendment in the writ petition was sought which was granted and so amended writ petition was filed.

(3.) The precise grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been fairly treated in the matter of promotion as Deputy Director and Joint Director and has also been denied the promotion as Additional Director, Public Relations. This injustice to the petitioner has been further aggravated by withdrawing the duties earlier assigned to him as Joint Director (Press) . By such a recourse, various rules, regulations and policy instructions issued from time to time and given in detail in para No. 6 of the writ petition have been violated thereby causing injustice to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that with a view to seek redressal of his grievance, he made three representations, Annexures P-6, P-7 and P-8 dated 7.3.1983, August, 1988 and 30.1.1989 respectively. Despite direction given by the Court to consider all his representations, the respondent simply glossed over without effectively dealing with any one of these representations. This way the order Annexure P-1 is also unsustainable. Assailing the promotion of Sh. P.S. Bhopal, respondent No. 2, to the post of Deputy Director in the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare vide Annexure P-9 dated 19.2.1975, it has been stated that this being a solitary post could not be given to respondent No. 2 treating it to be a reserve post. Even otherwise, Mr. P.S. Bhopal's A.C.R. had adverse entry and so such a post could not be reserved for him for subsequent utilisation on his clearance in respect of his alleged adverse annual confidential report. Similarly, his promotion as Additional Director, Public Relations, vide order dated 25.8.1983 initially for a period of six months and thereafter regularised is also inherently infirm and illegal as (i) the post of Additional Director Public Relations being a solitary post could not be filled by reservation in promotion; (ii) that this promotion was subject to the result of civil writ petition No. 7729 of 1982; (iii) Mr. P.S. Bhopal did not fulfil the minimum condition of experience of three years as was being observed at that time; (iv) the promotion was not made by selection as per statutory condition; and (v) that the petitioner along with others was not considered while promoting Mr. P.S. Bhopal.