PRITHVI RAJ MEHRA Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRITHVI Raj has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing the order dated the 3rd of September, 1966 (Annexure 'A') passed by the State of Punjab.

(2.) THE facts as alleged in the petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as a temporary Engineer on the 2nd of September, 1953, by the Government of Pepsu and was attached to the Irrigation Department. On the merger of the State of Pepsu with the State of Punjab, the Petitioner continued in service of the Punjab as a temporary Engineer. According to the rules in force in Pepsu at the time the Petitioner joined as a temporary Engineer, he was eligible to officiate as an Executive Engineer without being included in Class I Service of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class I P.W.D., (Irrigation Branch) Service Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the old Rules). The Petitioner, on the 2nd May, 1961, was promoted by the Respondent to the post of Executive Engineer under Rule 9 of the old Rules with the approval of the Public Service Commission. The period of probation of members of the Service is prescribed in Rule 14 of the old Rules and having completed the period of probation the Petitioner would be deemed to be confirmed in Class I Service. On 10th July, 1964, the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964, (hereinafter called the new Rules) were promulgated. Under these rules a procedure is prescribed for promoting officers of Class II Service or temporary Engineers to Class I Service. It is alleged in the petition that without following the mandatory procedure as laid down in Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the new Rules, the Petitioner has been reverted from the post of officiating Executive Engineer. It is alleged that the new Rule 8 envisages a committee for considering the names of those officers who could be appointed to Class I Service, by promotion, but no such committee screened the case of the Petitioner. It is also alleged that adverse remarks made by Shri N.K. Berry, Superintending Engineer, were communicated to the Petitioner against which he made representation for expunging those remarks and that a list submitted by the committee constituted under Rule 8 did not include the Petitioner's name and on that basis the Petitioner was ordered to be reverted, - -vide Annexure 'A', dated 3rd September, 1966. By way of this petition, the order (Annexure 'A') has been challenged to be illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, and contrary to the provisions of the new Rules, and against the principles of natural justice and fair -play on the grounds as given in the petition.

(3.) MR . Jagan Nath Kaushal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner vehemently contended that the committee constituted under Rule 8 of the new Rules was not a properly constituted committee and as such any recommendation made by such committee was without jurisdiction. It was further submitted that as the screening committee was to judge the suitability of the officers for promotion to the senior -scale of the Service, it was essential that an opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to the Petitioner and by not doing so, principles of natural justice and fair -play had been infringed. According to the learned Counsel, the right of hearing is implicit in Rule 8 of the new Rules. In support of his argument, reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Pandev v. The Chancellor, University of Bihar and Ors. : A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 353, and that of the Mysore High Court in Kenchiah and Ors. v. State Level Recruitment Committee Government of Mysore and Ors. A.I.R. 1966 Mysore 36.