PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to quash the order of promotion of the 3rd respondent dated 25.8.1982 as Superintendent in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and promote the 1st petitioner to the said post.

(2.) According to the 1st petitioner he was seniormost Superintendent Grade IV in the Deputy Commissioner's Offices in the Patiala Commissioner Division consisting of Patiala, Ropar, Sangrur and Ludhiana. Further according to him he was entitled to be promoted as Superintendent Grade-II being the senior- most Superintendent Grade-IV in place of the third respondent. The case of the petitioner was that he was appointed as Clerk on 1.9.1956 and he was later promoted as Assistant Superintendent on 1.4.1958. Subsequently, he was made Superintendent in the Office of Deputy Commissioner on 17.1.1975. According to him the 3rd respondent was junior to him in the cadre of Superintendent Grade VI and, therefore, the order dated 25.8.1982 promoting the 3rd respondent as Superintendent Grade-II is illegal.

(3.) Further according to the petitioners the Superintendents working in the office of Commissioner are designated as Superintendent Grade-I and Superintendent Grade III while those working in the Deputy Commissioners' offices were designated as Superintendents Grade-II and IV and as per the Punjab District Service Rules, 1976, a Superintendent Grade-II shall be promoted from amongst the superintendent Grade IV in the Deputy Commissioner's Office while for promotion as Superintendent in the Commissioner's office i.e. to the post of Superintendent Grade-I, it shall be made from amongst the Superintendents of the Deputy Commissioner Offices i.e. from the cadre of Superintendents Grade-II. Thus, according to the petitioner, a Superintendent Grade-IV working in the Deputy Commissioner's office can be promoted as Superintendent Grade-II while the Superintendent Grade-II can be promoted to Superintendent Grade-I in the Commissioner's office, and the 3rd respondent became Superintendent Grade-III in the office of Commissioner and, therefore, he was not eligible to be considered for promotion to Superintendent Grade-I as 3rd respondent never worked as Superintendent Grade-II in the office of Deputy Commissioner. According to the 1st petitioner, the vacancy of Superintendent Grade-II had arisen in the office of Deputy Commissioner on 23.12.1981 as one Jaswant Singh Walia, who was working as Superintendent Grade-III and was posted as Superintendent Grade-II in the Deputy Commissioner Office, did not join that post. Therefore, according to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 1st petitioner, who was the senior- most in the category of Superintendents Grade IV was to be promoted as Superintendent Grade-II in the office of Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the rules and the 3rd respondent, who was working as Superintendent Grade-III in the office of Commissioner, was not eligible to be posted as Superintendent Grade-II in the office of Deputy Commissioner. The order dated 25.8.1982 shows that the 3rd respondent was working as Superintendent Grade- III with effect from 31.5.1975 in the office of Commissioner, Patiala Division and by the impugned order the Commissioner gave a presumptive promotion to the 3rd respondent with effect from 16.7.1975 under rule 5 of the Punjab District Subordinate Service Rules, 1942. The order dated 25.8.1982 also indicates that the Commissioner found the work of the 3rd respondent satisfactory and, therefore, posted him as Superintendent in Deputy Commissioner's office, Patiala against a vacant post.