RATTAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, after qualifying in the Overseer's Course from the Government School of Engineering, Patiala, joined the service of the erstwhile State of Punjab, as an Overseer, in the year 1951. He was confirmed in that post with effect from 1st March, 1960. He passed the Departmental Revenue and professional Examinations prescribed by the Manual of Administration of P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch). The post of overseer later came to be known as Sectional Officer. The petitioner was promoted from the post of Sectional Officer to that of Sub-Divisional Officer on officiating basis on 20th September, 1968. A copy of the order is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. A number of Sectional Officers were promoted as officiating Sub-Divisional Officers prior to the petitioner's promotion in spite of the fact that they did not fulfil the requisite qualifications laid down by the service rules governing the recruitment and conditions of service of Sub-Divisional Officers and Overseers contained in Rule 11.4 of the Manual of Administration of P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch). These officers had not passed the Departmental Revenue and Professional Examinations which were essential for promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer. Towards the middle of 1967, the Government felt the necessity of reverting some officiating Sub-Divisional Officers. But instead of reverting those persons who had not yet qualified by passing the requisite departmental examinations, the officers who had qualified by passing both the departmental examinations, were reverted. Those officers filed writ petitions in this Court which have since been decided.

(2.) The petitioner was reverted by order dated 29th November, 1968 and it is alleged by him that he had been reverted while a number of unqualified persons, who have not passed the Departmental Professional and Revenue Examinations and whose appointments as Sub-Divisional Officers are contrary to Rule 11.4 of the Manual of the Administration, are still continuing to officiate as Sub-Divisional Officers. The names of Sarvshri Som Nath Saini, Chiranjiv Singh and M.L. Mohindra have been mentioned. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of his reversion dated 29th November, 1968, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 'B' to the writ petition, as being illegal, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience on the following grounds :-

(3.) The return to the writ petition has been filed by Shri G.S. Sidhu, M.I.E. Chief Engineer, (Drainage) Irrigation Works, Punjab, in which it is stated that the promotion of the petitioner was purely temporary and he could be reverted at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. It is admitted that Sectional Officers, who had not put in ten years' permanent service or had not passed the Departmental Professional and Revenue Examinations, were promoted in officiating capacity as Sub-Divisional Officers and when they were reverted because they did not possess the requisite qualifications, they obtained stay orders from this Court by filing writs. Gurdev Singh, J. dismissed the writ petitions on 29th December, 1968. It is alleged that the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Roshan Lal Saini (C.W. 1852 of 1967) which was dismissed by Gurdev Singh, J. on 20th December, 1968. It is further alleged that the writ petition also deserves dismissal as the petitioner had less than ten years' permanent service as Sectional Officer on the date of reversion and in view of the decision of Gurdev Singh, J. above referred to, he could be reverted when duly qualified persons became available. It is denied that the order of reversion was illegal, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience.