HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the Department of Jails as an Assistant Superintendent on 27th June, 1962. He was promoted as Deputy Superintendent Grade-II on 15th November, 1976 on ad hoc basis vide order Annexure P-1 to the petition. The promotion of the petitioner was, thereafter, approved by the Punjab Public Service Commission w.e.f. the date of the ad hoc promotion. The petitioner's case for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent Grade-I was considered by the State Government along with other eligible candidates and he was found suitable for promotion and was, accordingly, promoted w.e.f. 12th August, 1983. Respondent No. 3 Kuljit Inderpal Singh was selected for appointment as Deputy Superintendent Grade-II on the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission on 28th May, 1976 vide Annexure P-3 to the petition. On the basis of this selection, he was deputed for pre-service training for a period of 18 months and this too was completed vide Annexure P-4 dated 5th December, 1977 and it is the petitioner's case that the said respondent was, thereafter, appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent Grade-II w.e.f. that date on regular basis. Annexure P-4 also provided that he would be on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 5th December, 1977. The respondents circulated the Gradation List as it stood on 1.1.1977 in respect of various posts in the department and the petitioner was shown at serial No. 34 whereas respondent No. 3 was shown at serial No. 43. The Gradation List also indicated that respondent No. 3. had been given training for a period of 18 months w.e.f. 5th June, 1976 and that the seniority of the said respondent had been determined from the date of his regular appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent Grade-II i.e. w.e.f. 5th December, 1977. The petitioner was also promoted as Deputy Superintendent Grade-I on the basis of his seniority and merit vis-a-vis other eligible candidates including respondent No. 3. w.e.f. 12th August 1983 Annexure P-6 to the petition. Respondent No. 3., thereafter, submitted a representation to the State Government claiming that his seniority had been wrongly fixed vis-a-vis the petitioner and he was entitled to claim seniority over him for the reasons set out in the representation. This representation was allowed vide Annexure P-7 dated 23rd September, 1983 with the result that seniority has been granted to respondent No. 3 over the petitioner. Annexure P-7 has been impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. H.S. Sethi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the action of the State Government in giving seniority to respondent No. 3 over the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of Rule 13 of the Punjab Prisons Service (Class II) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter called "the Rules") as this rule specifically provided that seniority was to be given to an entrant to the service w.e.f. the date of his regular appointment. In this connection, he has also referred to para 204-1 of the Jail Manual which further clarified the matter when it stipulated that the seniority of a Member of the service was to be reckoned from his first appointment as Deputy Superintendent in a permanent vacancy after completion of the prescribed period of training and probation. Mr. Sethi has highlighted that the letter of appointment Annexure P-3 also contained a stipulation in the above terms when it stated that the service training given to respondent No. 3 would not count towards his seniority.

(3.) As against this, Mr. Balram. K. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has argued that the matter was covered not by the 1978 Rules but as the appointment of respondent No. 3 had been made in the year 1976, the matter would have to be decided in terms of the Punjab Prisons Service (Class-II) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the 1963 Rules') and that this rule did not stipulate that the period of pre-service training was to be excluded while determining the seniority of the officers concerned.