PUNJAB STATE AND ANOTHER Vs. BALKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Punjab through the Collector, Gurdaspur and another have challenged the concurrent findings vide judgment and decree dated 9.5.1995 passed by Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Gurdaspur and vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the suit for declaration filed by Balkar Singh respondent has been decreed with the consequential relief of arrears of pay and allowances from the date when his juniors had been given promotion.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondent Balkar Singh was appointed on 12.9.1969 as Tracer in the Soil Conservation Department and since then he is working as such. However, vide order No. 27709-13/E-3 dated 3.9.1991 passed by Chief Soil Conservation Officer, Jaswinder Singh Randhawa and Gurdeep Singh, juniors to the plaintiff-respondent, were promoted as Draftsmen. Aggrieved against the order of promotion, the plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit pleading that in the seniority list circulated vide office letter No. 16416-55/E-3 dated 23.8.1988 plaintiff was placed at serial No. 8, whereas Jaswinder Singh Randhawa and Gurdeep Singh were placed at serial Nos. 76 and 9 respectively. The plaintiff claimed to be governed by Punjab Soil Conservation of Engineering (Non-Ministerial) Class-III Service Rules, 1988. As per said Rules, 50% of posts of Draftsman were to be filled by Direct Recruitment and remaining 50% were to be filled by promotion from amongst the Tracers holding diploma in Draftsmanship.

(3.) Suit was contested by the appellant-defendants being time barred. It was further pleaded that vide Government Notification No. 10/2/90/FPI/3860 dated 9.5.1991 while raising the grade of Technical staff, direct recruitment of Draftsman had been stopped and it was decided to fill up the posts of Draftsman for amongst the Tracers (Junior Draftsman) having an experience of 12 years as Tracers. It is stated that Gurdeep Singh was selected as Draftsman by the Departmental Selection Committee as he fulfilled the qualification prescribed for the post of Draftsman, whereas plaintiff was not a fresh Draftsman vide order dated 3.9.1991 and not promoted as alleged by the plaintiff. Jaswinder Singh Randhawa had filed a suit on the basis of which a decree was passed in his favour for his appointment as draftsman. The State Government having failed in first appeal, filed regular second appeal before this Court, which is stated to be pending adjudication. It is stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to be promoted prior to the persons mentioned in the plaint. It was, however, admitted that plaintiff is Matriculate with two years diploma of Draftsman (Mechanical).