DEWAKAR SHARMA, INSTRUCTOR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition involves a challenge to the seniority list of Demonstrators/Drawing Instructors, Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, which has been circulated by the Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab, vide his memo dated 1.4.1980 (Annexure P6). The petitioner has prayed that the impugned seniority list be quashed and he be ordered to be ranked senior to respondents 3 to 10 with a direction for his promotion to the next higher post from the date of promotion of his alleged juniors.

(2.) Facts lie in a very narrow compass. In response to the advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission in the year 1966 for recruitment to the post of instructors, the petitioner had applied for the same and on having been selected by the Commission, he was appointed as Instructor (Electrical Engineering) with effect from 3.3.1967. The pay scale of the post of instructor was revised from Rs. 200-10- 300 to rs. 200-450/- with effect from 1.2.1968. Respondents 3 to 10 were appointed as demonstrators in the pay scale of Rs. 150-10-300/- on the recommendations of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab. In the year 1971 the Government of Punjab decided to amalgamate the orders of instructors (Electrical and Mechanical Engineering) with the cadres of Demonstrators (Electrical and Mechanical Engineering). After merger of the two cadres, a combined seniority list was issued by the department. The petitioner made representation against the seniority list showing respondents 3 to 10 as senior to him in the amalgamated cadre. His representation has been rejected by the Government as would appear from communication Annexure R2, dated 27.3.1980. The petitioner has challenged his placement below respondents 3 to 10 in the seniority list of instructors on the ground that he was. appointed on a post which carried pay scale higher than the post on which respondents 3 to 10 were appointed and even the qualifications for the post on which the petitioner had been recruited were higher than that of the post on which respondents 3 to 10 were recruited and, therefore, he should have been given promotion to the post of Principal in preference to the respondents. The petitioner has placed reliance on part-3(d) of Annexure P7 by which the Government of Punjab had issued administrative instructions in the form of Model Service Rules for the purpose of determination of seniority of the employees appointed to one cadre from different sources.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 and 2 have contested the writ petition and have pleaded that the grade of post held by the petitioner, as also the grades of post held by respondents 3 to 10 were revised with effect from 1.2.1968 and both the posts carried identical pay scale of Rs. 200-450/- from that date. According to the respondents, special pay of Rs. 50/- per month was also allowed to the holders of the posts in the two cadres with effect from 1.2.1971 and on the date of amalgamation i.e. 31.8.1971, the Instructors working in the Junior Technical Schools and the Demonstrators working in the Polytechnics were in the same pay scale. Further assertion of the respondents is the same pay scale. Further assertion of the respondents is that only those persons who possessed qualifications of diploma in engineering were made members of the amalgamated cadre of instructors and as there was no difference either in the qualifications or pay scale of the persons holding the posts in the amalgamated cadre, seniority was assigned to them on the basis of length of service. Respondents have also pleaded that after having taken advantage of amalgamation of the two cadres and having got promotion to the post of lecturer, the petitioner cannot question the seniority list issued in the year 1971 or rejection of his representation in the year 1980. According to the respondents, a large number of persons senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Instructors were left out from amalgamation and but for the petitioner having chosen to become a member of the amalgamated cadre, he would not have got promotion to the next higher post.