AMAR NATH GARG Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Amar Nath Garg, joined as a Lecturer (Mathematics) at the Government Polytechnic, Sirsa, on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission, vide order dated 9.9.1966, copy Annexure P-1. Later on, vide order, copy, Annexure P-2, dated 18.11.1972, the Director, Public Instructions, Punjab appointed him as a Lecturer in the Government Higher Secondary School, Jandwal Bhime Shah, Ferozepur i.e, in the Education Department. However, the petitioner was relieved by the Technical Education Department on 11.12.1972. The petitioner immediately, on that very day, joined the Education Department, i.e. the Government Higher Secondary School Jandwal Bhime Shah Ferozepur. From the date of his joining the Technical Education Department, i.e. 9.9.1966, till 11.12.1972, i.e. the dated of his relieving from the Technical Education Department, the petitioner has been working continuously in the Technical Education Department and there was no break in his service even from his relieving from the Technical Education Department and joining the Education Department on 11.12.1972, he represented to the Director, Public Instructions, Punjab, on 9.2.1973, that he be not deprived of the service rendered by him in the Technical Education Department and that his seniority be determined by taking into account his service with effect from 9.8.1966. He sent the reminder dated 7.12.1973, copy, Annexure P-3, requesting that his seniority be determined accordingly. In the Education Department, 20 per cent Lecturers on the basis of seniority alone, are granted selection grade by the Government and the promotion from the post of Lecturers to the post of Principal is also on the basis of seniority alone. When, according to the petitioner, surprisingly enough, vide letter copy, Annexure P-4, dated 8.1.1988, the District Education Officer, Bhatinda, had written that the Government had called the record of the Lecturers for the grant of the selection grade from serial No. 85 to 164 of the seniority list dated 1.10.1966 and serial No. 165 to 600 of the seniority list dated 31.12.1971, the name of the petitioner did not appear in either of the seniority lists prepared by the Education Department, he approached the Department. He was told that the department was considering his service with effect from 11.12.1972 i.e. the date of his joining the Education Department and was not at all considering the previous service rendered by him with effect from 9.9.1966 to 11.12.1972. According to the petitioner, in view of the policy letter, copy Annexure P-5, dated 24.11.1962 he was entitled to claim seniority from the date of his joining the Technical Education Department on 9.9.1966, when his name was recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission as well as from the date of appointment by transfer form 11.12.1972. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, the stand taken is that the name of the petitioner could not be considered on the basis of his seniority in view of his joining the Education Department on 11.12.1972. According to paragraph 19 of the written statement, the seniority of a Government employee is determined from the date of his joining the service in a particular department and this fact had been clarified by the Punjab Government letter dated 20.10.1985, copy, Annexure R-1. In paragraph 10, it was denied that representation dated 9.2.1973 of the petitioner was available on the record. As regards the application dated 7.12.1973, Annexure P-3, it was said to be an after-thought. According to the return, the petitioner remained silent for 15 years and did not represent to the higher authorities of the department and, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief in the writ jurisdiction.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the copy of Annexure P-2 dated 28.11.1972, was sent to the petitioner vide endorsement dated 28.11.1972. Since it was written therein that his seniority shall be taken from the date he joined his duty in the Education Department, Punjab, he immediately represented vide application dated 9.2.1973, and again made an application vide, Annexure P-3, dated 7.12.1973, and mentioning therein the earlier application dated 9.2.1973. It was categorically stated therein that his seniority be considered from the date he joined the Technical Education Department and not from the date he joined the Education Department. The promotion for the first time was being made in the year 1988. When he did not find his name for being considered for promotion, he filed the present writ petition. According to the learned counsel, in view of the policy letter, copy, Annexure P-5, dated 24.11.1964, the petitioner's seniority should be considered from the date he joined the Technical Education Department for the first time on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission, on 9.8.1966, and not from the date when he was directed to join the Education Department on 11.12.1972. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Sumitra Kumar Basu v Union of India,1987 2 SLR 595.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the policy letter, noticed above, does not help the case of the petitioner. Moreover, he accepted the terms vide order, Annexure P-2, wherein it was made clear that the seniority shall be taken from the date he joined his duty in the Education Department. Besides, argued the learned counsel the petitioner is approaching this Court after a lapse of sixteen years of the passing of the said order and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the writ jurisdiction.