SUDARSHAN SOOD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of 44 Writ Petition Nos. 2504 of 1967, 930, 931, 961, 962, 963, 964, 988, 1063, 3633, 3668, 3669, 3670, 3671, 3672, 3673, 3674, 3675, 3676, 3702, 3703, 3704, 3705, 3706, 3731 of 1968; 164, 168, 181, 182, 201, 208, 209, 229, 230, 351, 597, 598, 650, 668, 672, 741, 742, 997 and 998 of 1969, as common question of law and fact arise.

(2.) The petitioners in all these cases were working as Overseers, which posts were later on designated as Sectional Officers and they were promoted to the posts of Sub-Divisional Officers on officiating basis on various dates. After sometime they were reverted to the substantive posts of Sectional Officers. They have filed the present writ petitions challenging their reversions to which returns have been filed by the Chief Engineer.

(3.) Although no reason for reversion is mentioned in the reversion orders, the reason stated in the returns is that the petitioners were not qualified to hold the charge of Sub-Division and could not be promoted as officiating Sub-Divisional Officers. The petitioners have controverted this allegation in the replications which have been filed with the permission of this Court and their further grievance is that they had been reverted while some unqualified persons and some persons junior to them were retained as Sub-Divisional Officers who are still working. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on my judgment in Rattan Chand v. The State of Punjab and others, 1969 CurLJ 328 Civil Writ No. 3751 of 1968, decided on January 29, 1969 in which I had held on similar facts, that the petitioner could not be reverted to the post of a Sectional Officer as long as any unqualified Sectional Officer or a Sectional Officer junior to him, was officiating as a Sub-Divisional Officer. During the course of arguments in that case the judgment of Mr. Singh, J. in Civil Writ No. 2919 of 1965, Bhag Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, was brought to my notice which seemed to take a contrary view in respect of the qualification of the petitioners whose petitions were disposed of by one order. That judgment disposed of a number of writ petitions. One of them was by Roshan Lal Saini and it was submitted that the case of Rattan Chand was similar to that. Gurdev Singh, J. had dismissed the writ petition of Rohan Lal Saini and it was urged before me that I should also dismiss the writ petition of Rattan Chand on its basis. Gurdev Singh, J. had relied upon para 11.4 of the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Manual of Administration (hereinafter called the Manual) to determine whether Roshal Lal Saini was qualified to hold the charge of a Sub-Division and the learned Judge came to the conclusion that he was not. Para 11.4 of the Manual was amended later on by the Punjab Government vide Secretary to Government, Punjab, memorandum No. 14151-Irr-Estt. (4)-67/1753, dated January 29, 1968, and in accordance with that amended paragraph I found that Rattan Chand was qualified to hold the charge of a Sub Division and for this reason, I accepted that writ petition and quashed the order of his reversion. In the present petitions also, it has been stated in the returns that the petitioners were not qualified to hold the charge of Sub Divisions under paragraph 11.4 of the Manual and reliance has again been placed on the judgment of Gurdev Singh, J., in Roshan Lal Saini's case. As para 11.4 of the Manual was amended on January 29, 1968, I hold that such petitioners who were promoted after January 29, 1968, will be covered by my judgment in Rattan Chand's case while those petitioners who had been promoted prior to that date are covered by the judgment of Gurdev Singh, J. in Roshan Lal Saini's case. There is thus no conflict between my judgment and the judgment of Gurdev Singh, J. as Gurdev Singh, J. had also held that -