IQBAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondent No. 4 were appointed as Clerks in the office of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab in the years 1964 and 1965 respectively. The conditions of service of ministerial staff in the respondent-Department are governed by the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department, Subordinate Offices (Ministerial) Class-Ill Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred as the 1964 Rules). As per Rule 10 of the 1964 Rules, the seniority inter se of the members of service is deter-? mined by the dates of continuous appointment in the service and in the seniority list issued by the respondent authorities on 31.12.1972 and 31.3.1983, the petitioner was shown senior to respondent No. 4. The relevant extract of the seniority list dated 31.3.1983 is attached to the petition as Annexure P-l, wherein the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 93 and respondent No. 4 at Sr.

(2.) According to Punjab Government instructions, 33⅓% posts of the Excise and Taxation Inspectors are filled up by way of transfer from amongst the members of the ministerial staff on seniority basis in accordance with the Punjab Excise Subordinate Rules, 1943 and instructions issued from time to time. According to Punjab Government instructions contained in letter No. 7136/ET-73/625 3 dated 1.10.1973, educational qualifications for the posts of Excise/Taxation Inspectors to be filled in, by transfer, from the members of ministerial stall of that Department, is graduate. However, 10% posts are reserved for under-graduates or Matriculates. According to proviso to Rule 5 of the Punjab Excise Subordinate Service Rules, 1943, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner may for special reasons to be recorded in writing, appoint any person who does not possess the qualifications prescribed by the Rules.

(3.) Respondent No. 4, Shri K.L. Anand, who was junior to the petitioner in the ministerial cadre was appointed as Taxation Inspector vide order dated 14.12.1976 on purely ad hoc basis, as he was graduate at that time and the petitioner was not eligible being under-graduate. However, respondent No. 4 was reverted. Meanwhile, the petitioner appeared in the B.A. Final Examination in April, 1979 and did his graduation in July, 1979. He informed about his having done graduation Jo the Department. He also became eligible for the post of Taxation Inspector. In the year, 1983, respondent No. 4 who was junior to the petitioner, was again appointed as Taxation Inspector vide order dated 20.4.1983, but the petitioner was not considered for that appointment. Respondent No. 4 was appointed on the ground that he had a better/superior claim for his appointment as Taxation Inspector in preference to the petitioner. The grievence of the petitioner is that since he had become eligible for being considered for appointment as Taxation Inspector, despite that he was not considered.