AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. Each claims to be senior to the other. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Tracer in the Punjab Public Works Department (B & R Branch) on August 3, 1964. This appointment was made after obtaining names from the employment exchange. Similarly, respondent No. 3 was appointed as a Tracer in the Public Health Branch of the Public Works Department on December 7, 1963. While both of them were working as such, the Subordinate Services Selection Board advertised the posts of Tracers for being filled up on regular basis. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 along with various other candidates competed for recruitment to the post. Both were selected. It appears that the name of respondent No. 3 was recommended by the Board to the Capital Project Authorities at Chandigarh vide letter dated March 19, 1965. Three days later the petitioner's name was recommended by the Board to the Public Health Branch of the Public Works Department vide letter dated March 22, 1965. The petitioner claims that in spite of his name having been recommended to the Public Health Branch, he was allowed to continue working in the Building & Roads Branch. Respondent No. 3 had joined the Capital Project on April 2, 1965. On October 15, 1965, the Government ordered the merger of the Capital Project, Chandigarh, with the Public Works Department (Building & Roads Branch), a copy of the order has been produced as Annexure P/4 with the writ petition. In this order it was inter alia provided that the seniority inter-se grade shall be determined according to the date of appointment in that grade. Respondent No. 3 was promoted as Assistant Draftsman on November 1, 1968. Petitioner was similarly promoted as Assistant Draftsman on August 1, 1970. Thereafter respondent No. 3 was promoted as Divisional Head Draftsman with effect from July 1, 1975. It is thus clear that the Department was treating the respondent No. 3 as senior to the petitioner.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Government to claim that he was senior to respondent No. 3. This representation was accepted by the Government vide Order dated July 13, 1976. It was directed that the petitioner be treated as senior to respondent No. 3. As a consequence, the petitioner was also promoted as a Divisional Head Draftsman vide order dated October 14, 1976. Simultaneously, respondent No. 3 was ordered to be reverted from the post of Divisional Head Draftsman to that of Assistant Draftsman. Respondent No. 3 felt aggrieved. He had filed civil writ petition No. 7812 of 1976 to challenge the orders dated July 13, 1976 and October 14, 1976. This writ petition was allowed vide order dated August 1, 1983. It was held that the seniority could not have been disturbed without affording an opportunity to the person who was likely to be affected by the order. As a result, the impugned order was set aside. Respondents were directed to decide the matter afresh. Thereafter, the Government re-decided the matter vide its order dated November 14, 1986 by which respondent No. 3 was declared senior to the petitioner on the basis of the date of the recommendations of their names by the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board. Hence, this petition. The petitioner prays that the order dated November 14, 1986, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P/9 with the writ petition, be quashed.