TEK CHAND CHOPRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are concerned in this certiorari petition with the inter se seniority of the petitioner Tek Chand and the fourth respondent Dharam Singh, both of whom have been promoted and are working as Assistants in the office of the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab.

(2.) Tek Chand petitioner entered the service of the Patiala and East Punjab State Union on 24th August, 1950, and was serving as Clerk on the date of merger of this State with Punjab on 21st October, 1956. In the first provisional joint seniority list, which was prepared by the State of Punjab in 1958, the petitioner was shown at No. 55 whereas Dharam Singh's position of seniority was at No. 41. In consequence of the appeals filed before the Advisory Body of the Government of India a notification was issued on 26th June, 1965, which is Annexure B. Under this notification, the Government of Punjab published, what is called, "the final gradation lists of the Education Department (Headquarters Staff) which shall be in force retrospectively, from the Ist November, 1956". In this list the name of the petitioner is at No. 35 and that of Dharam Singh down below at No. 41. It was stated in the directive issued by the Government of India on 18th April, 1965 (Annexure C) that while promotions made before 27th February, 1961, on the basis of the provisional gradation lists were not to be disturbed, the seniority of an officer who would have been promoted if the Final Gradation Lists had been available on 1st November, 1966, should be counted from the date on which an officer junior to him had started continuous officiation in the higher post because of his promotions under the Provisional Gradation Lists.

(3.) The petitioner came to be promoted as an Assistant on 12th November, 1959, whereas Dharam Singh in view of his senior position in the Provisional List started officiating with effect from 26th September, 1957. It is not disputed that by virtue of the direction given by the Government of India on 18th of April, 1965, in clause 3, the petitioner according to his higher position in the Final List should have been deemed to continue his officiation as an Assistant with effect from 26th September, 1957. What the respondent-State has done, however, is to retain the senior position of Dharam Singh, the fourth respondent, in view of his having passed the test on 6th March, 1959, which was earlier than 2nd of July, 1960, when the petitioner actually passed the test. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Haryana, which is the successor to the Punjab State for purpose of this case, contends that the position taken by the Government is justified under the last paragraph of the directive which is to this effect :-