RAGH MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are Assistant Inspecting Officers, working in the Punjab State Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) (respondent No. 3), have challenged judgment dated 23rd May, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing their Civil Writ Petition No. 1884 of 1986. In the writ petition, they had challenged amendment dated 24th May, 1984, Annexure P2, and subsequent clarification dated 19th December, 1984, Annexure P3, made in the Rules framed by the Bank under Section 84-A of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). Section 84-A of the Act provided as under :-

(2.) The said amendment to the rules was challenged by the petitioners primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the main grievance of the appellants/petitioners was that the rules had not been amended in accordance with the provision made under Section 84-A of the Act. Secondly, it was contended that the clubbing of three different cadres together for the purpose of promotion to the post of Accountant and framing common seniority for that purpose was detrimental to their interests and the same was arbitrary, discriminatory and ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge rejected the challenge to the amendment vide Annexures P-2 and P-3 on both the grounds and dismissed the writ petition. This has given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) So far as the challenge to Annexure P-2 and P-3 on the grounds of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is pertinent to note that all the three posts i.e. Assistant Inspecting Officers, Junior Accountants and PAs/Stenographers, carry equal pay, have the same qualifications and are equal status posts. This is amply borne out from Appendix II of the Common Cadre Rules, Annexure P-1. Moreover, these three categories of posts were clubbed together and the same constituted the source for promotion to the next higher post of Accountant even in the unamended rules Annexure P-1. As a result of the amendment, the first proviso to the entry at Sr. No. 10 in Appendix II of the said rules regulating promotion to the higher post of Accountant was omitted vide Annexure P-2; and instead of the promotion being made according to the numerical strength of officers in each of the three feeder cadres, provision was made for promotion to the post of Accountant on the basis of joint seniority of officers in the feeder source of the three categories of posts i.e. Assistant Inspecting Officers, Junior Accountants and PAs/Stenographers, vide Annexure P-3. Such a change in the method of promotion cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Indeed challenge to Annexures P-2 and P-3 on this ground was not even pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants at the time of hearing of the appeal.