MAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of the Punjab Animal Husbandry (Class I) Service (hereinafter called 'Class I Service') and is at present working as Joint Director Animal Husbandry (Fodder), Punjab, at Chandigarh. He passed his M.Sc in Agriculture from the Punjab University in the year 1956 and joined this department in March, 1957 as Dairy Inspector. He was promoted to the Punjab Veterinary Service (Class II) in January, 1963 as Fodder Development Officer. The Punjab Public Service Commission found him fit for the post and his services were regularised vide order dated 27.7.1963. Later on he was confirmed in Class II service Vide order dated 27.10.1966 (Annexure P.2). On the re-organisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab, he was allocated to the new State of Punjab with effect from 1.11.1966. On 11.3.1970 he was promoted to the post of deputy Director (Feed and Fodder), which was a Class I post. Again, with the approval of the Punjab Public Service Commission, his service on the said post were regularised on 28.8.1972 vide order Annexure P 3. He was promoted to the post of Joint Director (Feed and Fodder), which was a newly created ex-cadre post on the abolition of the post of Deputy Director (Feed & Fodder), He was on probation on this new post for one year which he successfully completed on 24.10.1979, as is evident from the order dated 14.5.1981, Annexure P. 5.

(2.) The Punjab Animal Husbandry (Class I) Service Rules, 1980 hereinafter called 'the Rules') were formulated in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These Rules as notified on 12.12.1980, Annexure P. 6, came into force on the date of their publication. According to rule 3 ibid Class I Service comprises the posts shown in Appendix 'A' to the Rules. Proviso to Rule 3 lays down that nothing in these Rules shall affect the inherent right of the Government to add to or reduce the number of such posts, or to create new posts with different designations and scales of pay, whether permanently or temporarily. According to Rule 9, the appointments to the various posts in Class I Service are to be made in the manner as indicated against each post in Appendix 'B' to the Rules. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 provides that the members of Class I service shall be eligible for promotion in their respective cadres of class I services. Rule 12 lays down the manner of determining the seniority of the members of Class I Service and provides, inter-alia, that the seniority inter-se of members of Class I Service in each cadre shall be determined by length of their continuous service on a post in that cadre of the said service. The case of the petitioner is that he being the Joint Director holding Class I post in the Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Director in the said department which post was to fall vacant on the retirement of the present in cumbent on attaining the age superannuation on 31.8.1986. He has also made a grievance of the fact that the respondent State of Punjab issued the seniority list of the members of Class I Service as it stood on 1.1.1986, Annexure P. 12-A In spite of the fact that the Deputy Directors and other officers in Class I service who stand junior to the Joint Director - the post which the petitioner is holding - find place therein the name of the petitioner had not been included in the said seniority list. His prayer therefore, is two-fold. Firstly, that his name should be included in the seniority list of Class I service at No 1 and the seniority list already issued Annexure P-12-A should be declared on ultra vires the Rules. Secondly, that he should be considered for promotion to the post of Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, which was to fall vacant on 31.8.1986.

(3.) The petition was opposed by the respondent - State of Punjab and written statement on its behalf was filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Animal Husbandry, Department. The Service history of the petitioner as set out in the petition has not been disputed. It has, however, been contended that the petitioner is a member of the Feed & Fodder Development Cadre and is no doubt the senior most member of the said cadre but he could not be included in the seniority list Annexure P. 12-A as it pertains to the Class I Officers of the Administrative Cadre alone. It is further contended that the post of Director, Animal Husbandry, which was no doubt falling vacant on 31.8.1986 forms part of the Administrative Cadre. The petitioner being a member of a different cadre is not entitled to consideration for promotion to the post of Director.