D P PATHAK Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts are that petitioner No. 1 is working as a Professor in Government Ayurvedic College, Patiala, and is one of the senior Professors. Petitioner No. 2 is working as an Assistant Professor in the same College. They are in Class II service in Punjab Ayurvedic Department and are governed by the Punjab Ayurvedic Department (Class I and II) Service Rules 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In 1969-70 a post of Deputy Director in the Punjab Ayurvedic Department was created vide letter dated Jan. 18, 1973 (Copy annexure P-1) wherein the following qualifications were prescribed:

(2.) The Governor of Punjab created another post of Deputy Director in the same Department vide order dated May 10, 1978 (copy annexure p. 4). It is alleged that the Chief Minister directed that Mr. Keerti Sharma, respondent No. 2, be appointed to the said post. Consequently, he was appointed as such on ad hoc basis for a period of six months vide order dated June 27, 1978 (copy annexure p. 3). His appointment has been challenged on the ground that he did not fulfil the qualifications required for the post. It is, therefore, praved that a writ in the nature of quo warranto be issued, quashing the order of appointment of respondent No. 2, issued on June 27, 1978.

(3.) The writ petition has been contested by the respondents. The State of Punjab in its return averred that the post of Deputy Director is an ex-cadre post and is not governed by the Rules. It was decided to fill up the post from amongst the members of the service after taking into consideration their merit and seniority by considering a panel of three Officers. It is further averred that respondent No. 2 was selected as Deputy Director from a panel of eligible officers on the basis of his suitability in terms of seniority, experience and merit. Respondent No. 2 filed a separate return wherein he inter alia pleaded that the post was not included in any Service Rules. It is further stated that no qualifications had been prescribed for the post. In the circumstances, it is alleged, the Government was competent to consider the cases of the persons working in the Department and promote any one of them they considered suitable. It is then averred that the deponent possessed the requisite qualifications for the post.