S.K. MAHINDRU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as both the appeals are directed against the same judgment dated 6.10.1986 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. By this judgment the learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners and quashed the impugned orders dated 6.3.1986 (copy Annexure P.16 with the writ petition) and order dated 29.4.1986 (copy Annexure P-17/A) by which the representations filed by the writ petitioners were rejected and the seniority of Assistant Town Planners from Sr. No. 1 to 35 was made final. Against the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, L.P.A. No. 858 of 1986 has been filed by S/Sh. S.K. Mahindru, Jit Kumar Gupta, J.P. Singh and D.R. Goyal who were the private respondents in the writ petition. LPA No. 71 of 1987 has been filed by the State of Punjab against the said judgment.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appointment to the post of Assistant Town Planners in the Town and Country Planning Department Punjab Government is governed by Punjab Town Planners (State Service Class I) Rule, 1972 (in short referred to as 'the Rules'). Under Rule 8 of the Rules, 20% of the vacancies are filled up by promotion from amongst the Planning Assistants who have an experience of working as Planning Assistants for a minimum period of three years and remaining 80% of the vacancies are filled up by direct recruitment. As per Appendix A of the Rules, there are total 21 posts of Assistant Town Planner. Thus in terms of Rule 8, four posts out of these 21 posts can be filled by promotion from amongst the Planning Assistants and the remaining 17 posts are to be filled by direct appointment. In June, 1970 the said four posts meant for the departmental promotees were manned by S/Sh. V.K. Sachdeva, J.S. Jhas, V.S. Puri and K.L. Dham. Sh. V.K. Sachdeva was promoted as Divisional Town Planner (in short D.T.P.) on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 31.12.1971. Similarly Sh. J.S. Jhas and Sh. V.S. Puri were promoted as D.T.P. on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 8th October, 1972. As per para 9 of the written statement filed on behalf of the State Government in the writ petition, Sh. J.S. Jhas retired as ad hoc D.T.P. on 31.8.1977 and Sh. V.S. Puri was still working as D.T.P. on ad hoc basis on the date of filing of the written statement i.e. 16.8.1986. Sh. V.K. Sachdeva became regular as D.T.P. on 18.10.1975. Vide Annexure R.3 filed with the written statement of the State Government, two writ petitioners namely Sh. Sudershan Pal and Sh. Baldev Parsad Kessar were promoted as Assistant Town Planner purely on ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months or till the recommendees of the Public Service Commission (direct recruits) join in the Town and Country Planning. It is not disputed that the said two officials continued holding the post of Assistant Town Planner on ad hoc basis till they were regularised vide order dated 8.9.1983 and vide order dated 29.4.1985, their regularisation took place w.e.f. 12.3.1974 and 3.4.1974. Similarly the third writ petitioner Sh. R.S. Garcha, who is reported to have left the department was initially promoted as Assistant Town Planner on ad hoc basis and he continued to hold the post on ad hoc basis till he was regularised.

(3.) All the appellants, who were private respondents in the writ petition were appointed on 6.3.1974 whereas all the writ petitioners who were appointed as Assistant Town Planner prior to 6.3.1974 though on ad hoc basis and they were made regular w.e.f. the dates which were subsequent to 6th March, 1974. Since the writ petitioners were made regular from the date/dates which were subsequent to 6.3.1974, the date on which the appellants were appointed as Assistant Town Planner as direct recruits, all the writ petitioners were shown junior to the appellants. Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed representation dated 8th August, 1985, wherein they claimed that since they were appointed as Assistant Town Planner prior to 6.3.1974, they should be shown senior to the private respondents (appellants herein). Their representations were, however, rejected by the State Government vide memo dated 6.3.1986 and 29.4.86 copies of which have been annexed as Annexures P-16 and P-17/A with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the rejection of their representations, the writ petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1989 of 1990, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 6.10.1986, which has been challenged in the present appeals.