S.D. BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a member of the Punjab Education Service Class I has a two fold grievance. Firstly, he complains that his seniority in the Punjab Education Service Class II was wrongly changed vide memo. dated November 3, 1982, and respondents 3 and 4 were declared senior to him. He represented. While this representation was still pending, the Government issued a letter dated March 5, 1984, by which he was ordered to be reverted from the post of Principal to that of a Lecturer in Punjab Education Service Class II. The petitioner consequently prays that the seniority list, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.4 with the writ petition, and the order of reversion, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.6 with the writ petition, be quashed. A few facts which are relevant for the decision of the case may briefly be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as a Lecturer in Botany. This post was in the Punjab Education Service Class III in the grade of Rs. 300-600. On October 15, 1973, the petitioner was directly recruited to the post of Lecturer in Punjab Education Service Class II which was in the scale of Rs. 400-800. While working as a Lecturer in Class II, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal in Punjab Education Service Class I with effect from July 27, 1979.

(3.) Respondents 3 and 4 were also members of the Punjab Education Class III. They were promoted as Lecturers in Punjab Education Service Class II on July 25, 1974. The petitioner alleges that they have not been confirmed in Class II. A seniority list of the members of Class II service was circulated. It reflected the position as on April 1. 1975. The petitioner claims that he was shown senior to these respondents. However, in the year 1982, a fresh list was circulated which depicted the position as on July 1, 1982. In this list, the petitioner was placed at serial number 378. Respondents who had hitherto been shown junior to him, were placed at serial numbers 364 and 370. As this was not in conformity with the rules, the petitioner represented. However, without deciding his representation, the respondents ordered his reversion from Class I to class II vide order dated March 5, 1984. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P.6 with the writ petition. The petitioner impugns the order by which his seniority was changed to this disadvantage. He also challenges the validity of the order of his reversion. He consequently prays that the impugned orders be quashed and he should be deemed to have continued to work as Principal with effect from the date of his initial appointment.