JAGJIT SINGH SANDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Perennial tangle of inter-se-seniority between direct recruits and promotees once against engages the attention of this Court in this bunch of cases. The race between direct recruits and promotees in the present case is for appointment to the Class I service, which has been defined to mean "the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class-I P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch) and P.W.D. (Public Health.)" This service is governed by the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II PWD (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965 (herein-after referred to as the Rules of 1965). By virtue of provisions contained in the 1965 Rules, recruitment to the service for cadre and ex-cadre posts is from four different sources, namely direct appointment; promotion from the members of the Punjab PWD (B&R) Sectional Officers (Engineering) Service promotion from draftsmen members of the Draftsmen and Tracer service; and promotion from members of the Punjab PWD (B&R) Sectional Officers (Engineering) Service and the Draftsmen member of the Draftsmen and Tracer Service possessing qualifications prescribed in Appendix "B". Admittedly, a candidate of source 4 can be promoted only if he has qualification as provided in Appendix 'B' i.e. A.M.I.E. The dispute herein is between source 1, i.e., direct recruits and source 4, i.e., those who have the qualification of A.M.I.E.

(2.) What came to be focussed before the learned Single Judge were rules 6 and 12 of the Rules of 1965. Rule 6 contains 40-point roster 40 posts have been divided in five lots consisting of 8 posts each. The posts to be filled by four different sources, as referred to above, have been earmarked in each lot of 8 posts. Recruitment to service for cadre and ex-cadre posts, as per rule 6, has to be made in the proportion and order indicated against block of 40 vacancies. Rule 12 deals with seniority and while making reference to rule 6, it has been said in sub-rules (2) and (4) of the said rule that inter-se seniority of the members shall be in order of recruitment provided in the said rule, i.e., rule 6.

(3.) Learned Single Judge by a common judgment, recorded in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5265 of 1983 filed by the direct recruits and 6758 of 1986 and 7829 of 1988 filed by promotees from source 4, held that "Seniority of the petitioner, i.e., representing source 4, had to be fixed in the order prescribed under rule 6(1) and further that clause (2) contemplates that if suitable persons are not available from source No. 4 for appointment to the service, the vacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment". It has further been held that "while the rule enables the State Govt. to divert the vacancies available for being filled up from source No. 4 to direct recruitment, the slot is not altered (Emphasis supplied) and that clauses (3), (4) and (5) are not relevant for the decision of controversy in the present case". It has further been held that "rules 8 and 9 lay down the procedure for direct recruitment and promotion respectively and that clauses (3) and (4) would show that inter-se seniority within the group of persons selected for direct recruitment for appointment by promotion from a particular source, has to be in the order of merit determined in accordance with the provisions of rules 8 and 9 and that according to clauses (1) and (2) the inter-se seniority of the members of the service has to be determined in the order of recruitment provided under rule 6, meaning thereby the sequence of appointment contemplated under rule 6(1) has to be reflected in the seniority". By so holding it has been declared that the seniority of the persons mentioned in the order dated May 28, 1980 having been determined, their claim for promotion had to be considered whenever any person junior to them was considered for promotion. A direction was then issued to the official respondents to consider the claims for promotion to various posts in accordance with the seniority as reflected in the list dated May 28, 1980.