SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is the appointment/promotion of Mukhtiar Singh, respondent No. 3 as Labour Inspector Grade-II on the ground that claim of the petitioner, who is senior to the said respondent, had not been considered.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition may first be noticed.

(3.) Petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the office of Labour Inspector, Kapurthala on 24.10.1969 and at present he is working as a Junior Assistant which is equivalent to the post of Senior Clerk in the same cadre. There are two modes of promotion from the post of Clerk/Senior Clerk/Junior Assistant. They may opt for promotion as Readers, Assistants or Supervisors or Superintendents Grade II or they may opt for the other line i.e. to the post of Labour Inspector Grade-II and onwards. The Labour Commissioner, as per his letter dated 12.11.1981, asked for options from the clerks whether they wished to be promoted in the Clerical cadre or in the cadre of Labour Inspectors. In response to this letter, the petitioner opted for promotion as Labour Inspector Grade-II. Options once exercised by the Clerks are final and they are not allowed to change them. The petitioner was, however, promoted on 11.4.1989 as Resident Supervisor in the Clerical cadre which post is equivalent to that of an Assistant. This promotion was contrary to the option exercised by him and, therefore, he filed CWP No. 5799 of 1989 in this Court challenging his promotion. When notice was issued to the respondents, they withdrew the order of promotion and stated before this Court that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Labour Inspector Grade-II would be considered in due course in accordance with rules. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of on September 18, 1989 as infructuous.