TARSEM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 23.2.1998 and 27.2.1998 (Annexures P-13 and P-17) issued by the State of Punjab whereby the 2nd respondent was promoted as Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab and granted extension in service for a period of one year from 28.2.1998 to 27.2.1999 and also issue a writ of quo warranto that the 2nd respondent is an unsurper of the office of D.I.G. (Prisons) and Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, after 28.2.1998 beyond the date of superannuation and also issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ist respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as D.I.G. (Prisons) from the date he became eligible for the same and to consider him for promotion to the post of Inspector General of Prisons from the date superannuation of Inspector General of Prisons from the date of superannuation of the 2nd respondent i.e. 28.2.1998.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Superintendent (Jails) on 1.10.1965 whereas the 2nd respondent was appointed as Assistant Superintendent (Jails) on 20.9.1996. The petitioner was promoted to the Punjab Prisons Service Class-I as Superintendent Central Jail/Asstt. Superintendent of Jails on regular basis by an order dated 20.4.1992 and subsequently he was given the deemed date of promotion from 1.2.1991. The petitioner was posted against the post of Deputy Inspector General vide orders dated 16.7.1996 and 11.9.1996. Although be became eligible to promotion as Deputy Inspector General with effect from 1.2.1996, he was not promoted as such for one reason or the other. Further according to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent was promoted as Superintendent Jails/Assistant Inspector General (Class-I) on 15.7.1993. It is further averred that the vacancy in the post of Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, had arisen on 31.1.1997 on the retirement of Shri B.S. Sandhu and the 2nd respondent was given the current duty charge of the said post instead of filling the vacancy on regular basis as provided in Punjab Prisons State Service (Class-I) Rules, 1979. According to the petitioner, he is senior to and is meritorious than the 2nd respondent in every respect. He made the representation against the posting of the 2nd respondent as Inspector General of Prisons stating therein that the 2nd respondent is junior to him in service and that he has got a superior claim for the post of Inspector General of Prisons. The petitioner also averred that he did not agitate his claim since the 2nd respondent was due to retire on 28.2.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation, but he was given extension in service of one year which compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition. According to him, the orders of posting of the 2nd respondent as Inspector General of Prisons and his extension beyond the age of superannuation is contrary to rules and are liable to be quashed and he deserves to be promoted to the post of Inspector General of Prisons.

(3.) The State of Punjab filed a written statement contending inter alia that though the 2nd respondent had actually joined service on 20.9.1966, he was given the benefit of military service of a period of one year and 11 months. Though the petitioner and the other affected parties objected to the grant of benefit of military service to the 2nd respondent, their objections were rejected by an order dated 23.12.1986. Neither the petitioner nor any other affected person challenged the same. Therefore, the 2nd respondent became senior to the petitioner since he has been given the benefit of military service and the 2nd respondent was given the deemed date of promotion as Deputy Superintendent Grade-II with effect from 15.11.1976 and Deputy Superintendent Grade-I (Jails) with effect from 21.3.1985. Thus the petitioner became junior to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, in the Gradation List issued as on 1.3.1998, the 2nd respondent was shown as senior to the petitioner. The same has not been challenged and that the petitioner who belongs to a reserved category of Scheduled Castes was promoted to Class-I Service before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent though promoted as Superintendent Central (Jails) on 19.4.1992, he was ultimately given deemed date of promotion with effect from 1.2.1991. It is further averred that the petitioner was not promoted on the basis of his seniority, but only on the basis of reservation point in the roster and the 2nd respondent was promoted to Class-I Service as Assistant Inspector General (Prisons) on 1.2.1993 in his own pay scale and was ultimately given the regular pay scale on 15.7.1993 after being heard by the Departmental Promotion Committee. After the judgment of the Apex Court in Janjua's case, the 2nd respondent made a representation that he should be declared senior to the petitioner in Class-II Service and the petitioner was promoted to Class-I Service only because of the reservation. Notice of that representation was given to the affected parties including the petitioner who objected to the grant of relief to the 2nd respondent. Their objections were rejected by the Government vide its order dated 12.3.1997 which has not been challenged either by the petitioner or by any other affected person. In consequence of that the 2nd respondent again became senior to the petitioner in Class-I Service. On the retirement of Shri B.S. Sandhu, as Inspector General (Prisons) on 31.3.1997, the 2nd respondent who was senior to the petitioner and was found fit to man the post of Inspector General (Prisons) was promoted on officiating basis. Thus the 2nd respondent was discharging the functions as Inspector General (Prisons) with effect from 1.4.1997. Meanwhile the Government considered the issue as to who should be promoted on regular basis. The Government after consideration of the matter constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee which was convened on 17.2.1998 and the Department placed the case of the petitioner and the second respondent for regular promotion. The Departmental Promotion Committee after considering the matter at length concluded that the 2nd respondent who is senior-most member of the Class-I Service, should be promoted as Deputy Inspector and accordingly the Government issued the order (Annexure P-13) promoting him as DIG (Prisons). Further in view of the earlier order, the 2nd respondentg was continuing to discharge the functions as Inspector General (Prisons) in the Department. Since the 2nd respondent was to retire on 28.2.1998, the question arose as to how should the post of Inspector General be manned thereafter. Since the 2nd respondent was due to retire on 28.2.1998 and the petitioner was to retire on 31.5.1998 and as there was no other Class-I Officer with sufficient experience and seniority to man the post of Inspector General (Prisons) a decision was taken that the post of Inspector General (Prisons) should be manned by an officer of Prison Department only. Since the post of Inspector General (Prisons) is highly sensitive as number of terrorists have to be detained not only from Punjab, but also from the neighbouring State of Jammu & Kashmir, it was felt that an experienced officer should man this sensitive post. Accordingly the Government decided to permit the 2nd respondent to continue as Inspector General (Prisons) for a period one year with effect from 28.2.1998 and the decision was taken in view of the exigency of service and there is nothing wrong in the same. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.