PARAMJIT RAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Shri Paramjit Rai was directly recruited as an Assistant Engineer in August, 1978 in the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Limited (for short the corporation ). He was promoted to the post of Divisional Engineer in November, 1986. He belongs to a Scheduled Caste but his promotion was not on the basis of reservation and he was promoted on his turn as per his seniority as Assistant Engineer. According to Bye-law 9. 1 (a) read with Appendix 'b' of the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Employees Service Bye-laws, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Bye-law) a Divisional Engineer with seven years of service becomes eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Superintending Engineer. Since the petitioner was promoted to the post of Divisional Engineer in November, 1986 he became eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in November, 1993 after he completed seven years of service as Divisional Engineer.

(2.) ON the retirement of a Superintending Engineer on 28. 2. 1994 one post had fallen vacant which was filled up by the corporation by brining one Shri P. K. Sharma on deputation on 9. 3. 1994. It may be mentioned that method of appointment to the service of the corporation is given in Bye-law 8, according to which, appointment can be made in the following manner : i) by direct appointment; ii) by promotion, iii) by transfer/deputation of an employee of the Government, Central Government or State/central Undertakings and other statutory bodies ; iv) by absorption into service of the employees taken on deputation. Since the petitioner was eligible for promotion but his claim was not considered when Shri P. K. Sharma was brought on deputation the former represented to the corporation making a grievance that he ought to have been considered for promotion. He also claimed promotion on the basis of reservation in terms of the Government instructions issued in this regard from time to time. In the meantime, the State Government issued an order dated 26. 9. 1995 directing the corporation to follow and modify its Bye-laws/policy of promotion and recruitment so as to have 50% of the posts including those of the Superintending Engineers filled by taking officers on deputation from the Punjab Irrigation Department. The Chairman of the corporation considered the representation made by the petitioner favorably and addressed a communication to the State Government emphasising that the circular letter dated 26. 9. 1995 be withdrawn and that the State Government should send a panel of names of officers from the Irrigation Department so that the corporation could consider those officers alongwith the eligible officers of the corporation for making promotion to the posts of Divisional Engineer and above. He also brought to the notice of the State Government a decision of the Court in civil writ petition 2440 of 1989 filed by S. K. Gulati a Divisional Engineer whose claim had not been considered for promotion and the vacant post had been filled up by taking officers on deputation. It is worth while to mention that the case of Shri S. K. Gulati was similar to that of the petitioner herein and the writ petition filed by Shri Gulati was allowed by this Court holding that non consideration of his case for promotion and filling up the post by way of deputation was not only unfair and unreasonable but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This court in S. K. Gulati's case (supra) quashed the appointment of Shri R. K. Aggarwal Superintending Engineer who had been brought on deputation in preference to Shri Gulati who was a Divisional Engineer in the Corporation and the corporation was directed to consider the claim of Shri S. K. Gulati for promotion as Superintending Engineer. It is common case of the parties that in pursuance to the decision in S. K. Gulati's case Shri Gulati and one Sucha Singh who were both working as Divisional Engineers were considered and promoted as Superintending Engineers against the posts that had fallen vacant on the repatriation/retirement of Superintending Engineers on deputation. It is surprising to note that the corporation did not follow the directions of this court in S. K. Gulali's case in the case of the petitioner herein who is similarly situated like Sarvshri S. K. Gulati and Sucha Singh who have since been promoted on 30. 7. 1993 and brought Shri P. K. Sharma, on deputation. Shri P. K. Sharma Engineer was retired from service on 31. 10. 1996. On his post falling vacant the corporation again did not consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and instead brought Sh. D. R. Dingra on deputation on the pretext that out of the five posts of Superintending Engineers in the corporation three were held by promotees and, therefore, the vacancy caused on the retirement of Shri P. K. Sharma fell to the share of the deputationists in terms of the Government circular dated 26. 9. 1995. The representations filed by the petitioner were thereafter rejected by the corporation and the petitioner was informed as per communication dated 1. 1. 1997 that there was no vacancy of Superintending Engineer in the corporation and that the vacancy caused on the repatriation/retirement of one Shri S. L. Gupta, was to be filed by an incumbent on deputation from the Irrigation Department as per Government directions contained in circular letter dated 26. 9. 1995. The rejection of the representations filed by the petitioner and the appointment of Shri D. R. Dingra as Superintending Engineer on deputation have been challenged in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power of the State Government to issue directions like the one contained in circular letter dated 26. 9. 1995 has also been challenged and it is alleged that the said circular is illegal and unconstitutional.

(3.) SHRI Harjit Singh, Under Secretary in the Department of Irrigation and Power, Punjab has also filed a short reply on behalf of the State of Punjab justifying its power to issue directions to the corporation and reference in this regard has been made to Article 133 of the Articles of Association of the corporation whereunder the Government could issue directions to the corporation in matters of broad policy. It is stated on behalf of the State Government that the directions were issued in the larger public interest and not to harm the rights of any officer/employee, of the corporation.