DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who were working as Tracers in the Punjab public Works Department (Building and Roads) had challenged the advertisement Published in the Daily Tribune dated September 7, 1982, copy Annexure P-2, issued by the respondent-Department for filling seven posts of Draftsmen (Civil) by way of direct recruitment. The challenge is on the ground that the advertisement is in violation of rule 6(i)(c) of the Punjab Public Works Department (Building and Roads branch) Draftsmen and Tracers Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') which provides that 2/3rd of the posts are to be filled by direct recruitment and 1/3rd by promotion. The direct recruits being already in excess of their quota, the vacant posts had to be filled by promotion and not by direct recruitment. As a matter of fact, it had been averred in para 9 of the petition that oui of total number of 196 posts, the promotees were holding only 46 posts and the rest of them were being held by direct recruits. Rule 6 of the Rules, which lays down the method of appointment, is in the following terms :-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the posts have to be filled by direct recruitment and promotion as per the rotation mentioned above and in case no eligible Tracers for promotion is available then slots meant for promotees have to be kept vacant and direct recruitment can be done in the subsequent slots meant for direct recruits subject to the rider that by this process, the total number of direct recruits cannot exceed 2/3rd of the cadre strength. Whenever the promotees become available, they may be given the slots meant for them which had been kept vacant. Learned counsel fairly conceded that by getting the slots which were kept vacant, the promotee officers would not gel a seniority higher than the direct recruits who might have been directly recruited earlicr and were within the quota. The seniority inter se of the direct recruits and the promotees has to be determined according to rule 12 of the Rules. Since in the present case when the impugned advertisement dated September 7, 1982, copy Annexure P-2 was issued, the direct recruits were already in excess of their quota, therefore, direct recruitment could not be resorted to and the post should have been filled by promotion from the eligible and suitable Tracers strictly in conformity with rule 6(c)(i) and (ii) to maintain the ratio of 2/3rd and l/3rd between direct recruits and promotees.

(3.) I had asked the counsel for the respondents to file a specific affidavit regarding the factual position as to what was the cadre strength of the Draftsmen when the impugned advertisement was issued and how many direct recruits and promotees were actually working. An affidavit dated January 15, 1996, of Shri Sarjit Singh, Registrar office of the Chief Engineer, Punjab, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch), Patiala, has been filed, in which it is mentioned that when the impugned advertisement was issued, the sanctioned strength of Draftsmen was of 159 posts. 106 posts fell to the quota of direct recruits as per rule 6(c)(i) and (ii). At that time, actually 119 direct recruits and 33 promotees were working and 7 posts were vacant for which advertisement was issued. It has further been mentioned that on the recommendation made on February 28, 1993, by the Departmental Selection Committee, ten appointments were made by way of direct recruitment. It has still further been averred that the petitioners had also been promoted on the various dates between January 2,1984, to April 7,1986. It has also been stated that seniority is to be determined according to the slots meant for direct recruits or the promotees, as the case may be.