HARBHAJAN SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who was working as Deputy Economic and Statistical Adviser in the Economic and Statistical Organisation, Punjab, has filed this petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (which held its meeting on 29.11.1995) for filling up three posts of Joint Directors in the Economic and Statistical Organisation, Punjab, by promotion from amongst the Deputy Economic and Statistical Advisers on the ground that these posts have been filled up in contravention of Rule 7(2) of the Punjab Economic and Statistical Organisation (State Service Class-I) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

(2.) Eligibility for the post of Joint Director filled up through promotion is Master's degree in Economics or Mathematics or Agricultural Economics or Commerce or Statistics with Statistics as one of the papers in the first four cases from a recognised university plus eight years experience in guiding and conducting research in various economic and statistical matters and Senior Research Officer of Deputy Economic and Statistical Adviser. State of Punjab was to fill up three posts of Joint Directors by promotion. All promotions in Class-I service in Economic and Statistical Organisation are to be made by selection on merits as envisaged in Rule 7(2) of the Rules, which reads as under :-

(3.) Petitioner has averred that on 29.11.1995 Departmental Promotion Committee (for short referred to as DPC) consisting of Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of Planning, the Economic and Statistical Adviser and representatives of Welfare and Personnel departments considered the case of three senior most Deputy Economic and Statistical Advisers in Economic and Statistical Organisation, Punjab and have submitted their recommendations to the concerned Minister to the Government of Punjab for approval and subsequent promotions of respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 being the senior most in the seniority list issued on 31.8.1993, in violation of Rule 7(2) of the rules. That the posts have been filled on the principle of seniority cum merit whereas the posts were to be filled as per the rule on the principle of merit-cum-seniority. It has been averred by the petitioner that he has got a very good record including one outstanding report during the relevant period and falls at Serial No. 5 in the seniority list of Deputy Economic and Statistical Advisers. For the selection of three Joint Directors at least five senior most Deputy Economic and Statistical advisers ought to have been considered as per criteria already laid down for determining merit of the candidates. That the D.P.C. did not consider the petitioner or even respondent No. 6 who is immediately senior to the petitioner thereby contravening the merit criteria; further averment of the petitioner is that in October 1994 the D.P.C. determined the merit by allotting marks to various levels of over all assessment records in the annual confidential reports of the officials under considerations for promotion and the following criteria was laid down :-