KIRAN DHAWAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Director in the department of Social Welfare in the State of Punjab and also to quash the promotions of respondents 4 and 5 who are juniors to her and issue a writ of quo warranto to against respondent No. 3.

(2.) The petitioner was selected as Divisional Social Welfare Officer in the year 1980 by the Punjab Public Service Commission. At the time of selection, there were two schemes being run by the Social Welfare Department, namely, Integrated Child Welfare Scheme and Social Welfare Scheme. There were posts of District Social Welfare Officers and from those posts, the promotion was to the post of Child Development Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the CDPO'). There were also posts of Assistant Directors in the Social Welfare Scheme which were in the same pay scale of CDPO and both the posts were inter- transferable. There is also another post, namely, Social Officer (Slums), which is also equivalent post to that of CDPO and Assistant Director. A common seniority list of these posts was being maintained on the basis of length of service. Accordingly, the petitioner who joined as District Social Welfare Officer was transferred to the post of CDPO, which was created in the year 1982. The third respondent who was also working as District Social Welfare Officer, was also posted as CDPO. So is the case with respondent No. 5. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent was placed below the petitioner in the merit list which was prepared by the Punjab Public Service Commission. It is further averred that in the year 1986, the petitioner was posted as Special Officer (Slums), which is equivalent to the post of Assistant Director in Social Welfare Scheme. In the year 1987, the petitioner was promoted as CDPO with effect from the year 1982 and she was paid all the arrears. It is further averred that in the year 1989, the Social Welfare Department was divided into two decisions. One was Integrated Child Development Division and the other was Social Welfare Division. Respondents 1 and 2 called for options from the persons working as to in which division they would like to work so that they should be posted in those divisions. The petitioner opted to be in the Social Welfare Division and remained working as Special Officer (Slums). Respondents 3 and 5 opted to remain as CDPOs and they were also promoted as Programme Officers in the year 1991. Since the petitioner opted to remain in the Social Welfare Scheme, she remained working in the lower pay-scale as Special Officer (Slums). In the year (sic) the Government abolished all posts of Assistant Directors and created one post of Additional Director and three posts of Deputy Directors in the Social Welfare Scheme. The Government also framed rules called Punjab Social and Women Welfare (Class I) Service Rules, 1991. The post of Deputy Director was class I post and was governed by these Rules. On 20.7.1992, the department called for fresh options and the petitioner opted to remain as Special Officer (Slums) in the Social Welfare Division. Respondent 5 who earlier opted to remain in Child Development Scheme, opted to go Social Welfare Scheme, since there was one post of Deputy Director in the said Scheme and there are four posts of Deputy Directors in the Social Welfare Scheme. The third respondent opted to remain in the Integrated Child Development Scheme as a Programme Officer but later she changed her option when promotions were to be made to the post of Deputy Director in the Social Welfare Division. According to the petitioner, the third respondent was allowed to change the option with a mala fide intention to help him. A tentative seniority list was circulated on 27.11.1992 and in the said list the name of the petitioner does not find place either in the ICDS or Social Welfare Scheme, even though they were earlier working in the ICDS as Programme Officers and had opted for Social Welfare Division in pursuance of the option invited by respondents 1 and 2 for the second time. The petitioner made a representation against the exclusion of her name from the Social Welfare Scheme even though she has been working as Special Officer (Slums) since 1986. While so, respondents 1 and 2 have promoted respondents 3 to 5 to the newly created post of Deputy Director ignoring the claim of the petitioner even though she is senior to respondents 4 and 5. That necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement contending that the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable since the seniority list-Annexure P.13 is only a tentative one and the objections have been invited. It is also stated that the case of the petitioner was under consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Director on the retirement of the third respondent on 31.1.1994. It is further stated that the post of CDPO and Assistant Director are not inter-changeable. It is further stated that the name of the fifth respondent has been shown at Sr. No. 1 while that of the petitioner has been shown at Sr. No. 2 in the merit list prepared by the Punjab Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of D.S.U.O. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to be senior to respondent No. 5. It was admitted that the petitioner was officiating as CDPO along with respondent 3 and 5 in her own pay scale on the posts of District Social Welfare Officers and that respondent No. 5 figures at Sr. No. 1 and the petitioner falls at Sr. No. 2 of the merit list dated 4.11.1979 prepared by the Punjab Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Divisional Social Welfare Officer. Since the petitioner is junior to respondents 3 to 5, she is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.