PUNJAB SCHOOL EDU BOARD Vs. PIARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' second appeal.

(2.) Plaintiff Piara Singh (respondent herein) tiled suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to appoint him as Depot Manager. He also sought declaration that appointment of defendant No. 3 namely Raminderjit Singh (appellant No. 2 herein) is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside. Plaintiff wac originally an employee in the department of Printing and Stationery, Punjab. Later this department was transferred to the Punjab School Education Board, as a result of which it was decided to transfer the employees working in the erstwhile Printing and stationery Department to the Board. Plaintiff alongwith other employees was absorbed in the service of the Board on the terms and conditions circulated by the Board vide letter dated 313.1976. Plaintiff in his plaint has averred that prior to the absorption of the employees of the ei srwhile Printing and Stationery Department, Punjab, the Assistant working with the Board had promotional avenue only to the post of Superintendent. Thereafter, six posts of Manager were created by the Board in order to provide promotional avenue to the Assistants of erstwhile Printing and stationery Department, Punjab. Subsequently, on the opening of five more textbook depots in the State of Punjab, equivalent number of posts of Manager were created by the Board. Apart from this, there already existed a post of Manager, Text-book depot. Two more posts, i.e. of Manager (Inspection) and Superintendent were created, thereby raising the strength of posts of Manager to 14. Certain posts of Managers were advertised by the Board for being filled by direct recruitment. Plaintiff along with other persons applied for the said post in response to the advertisement. Plaintiff was called for interview on 22.4.1980. Plaintiff along wilh others appeared before the Selection Committee, but was not selected. One Zora Singh was selected and appointed. Plaintiff has alleged that Zora Singh did not have the requisite experience and adverse reports and complaints were mounting against him. A representation was made against the selection of Zora Singh. Again the Board advertised the post of Manager against which plaintiff applied along with other candidates. Plaintiff was interviewed on 11.8.1980 and was declared selected for appointment to the post of Depot Manager. However, before the letter of appointment could be issued to the plaintiff, (sic) candidates raised their claim against the post and the defendants reserved the post for scheduled caste candidates. It is the case of the appellants that though the post of Depot Manager which was reserved by the defendants for scheduled caste candidates but still Raminderjit Singh, defendant No. 3 was appointed on officiating basis and later was given regular grade of Depot Manager. In the plaint, it has also been averred that the appointment and continuance of Raminderjit Singh after the post was reserved to which the plaintiff was initially selected, is illegal and the intention of the defendants is to deny the plaintiff of his legitimate right to be appointed to the post of Depot Manager against which he was selected.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement have admitted that six posts of Managers were created w.e.f. 1.2.1975 at the time of taking over depots from Government on which six Managers in the erstwhile Printing and Siationery Department were adjusted by the Board. However, they have denied that these' posts were created to provide promotion avenue to the Assistants of erstwhile Printing and Stationery Department. On the opening of five more depots, five posts of Managers were created vide order dated 15.3.1977 and one post of Manager already existed at Chandigarh Depot. The creation of another post of Manager (Inspection) on 10.9.1981 was also admitted. Respondents 1 and 2 have however denied that the post of Manager was again advertised; rather it is the case of defendants that actually the post was circulated amongst the employees of the Board, for which an interview was held on 11.8.1980 and the plaintiff was selected, but no declaration was made in this connection. Some candidates belonging to scheduled caste represented that this post be given to them. On consideration of their representation the selection Committee decided that the post be reserved for scheduled castes and be circulated and therefore, selection of the plaintiff was not implemented. In regard to appointment of Raminderjit Singh, they have averred that he was given the charge of Manager on 7.5.1980 as provisional arrangement prior to selection of plaintiff by the Selection Committee and the same was allowed to continue till such time clarification is revived from the Government. Defendant No. 3 in his written statement has denied that the plaintiff was selected by the Selection Committee or that the appointment of defendant No. 3 is illegal. His case is also that he was holding the charge of Manager on provisional basis.