KHUSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing seniority list of the officers of Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) [for short, PCS (Executive Branch)] circulated vide order dated 18/1.9.3.1993 of Chief Secretary, Punjab and for issuance of a direction to respondent No. 1 to fix the seniority of the officers as per the roster points specified in Rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976 (for short, the Rules). In C.W.P. Nos. 8957 and 5802 of 1993, the petitioners have further prayed for directing the official respondents to fix their seniority above respondents No. 4 and 5 in terms of Rule 21-C of the Rules.

(2.) For deciding the issues arising in these petitions, we may notice the relevant facts. C.W.P. No. 8957 of 1993 Petitioner-Khushi Ram joined service as Naib Tehsildar on 10.4.1978. He was promoted as Tehsildar on 8.1.1982 but was reverted after about 4 months due to non-availability of vacant post. He was re-promoted as Tehsildar on 24.11.1982. In April, 1994, the Government of Punjab, Department of Revenue, circulated memo dated 9.4.1984 to all the Commissioners in the State for sending the names of eligible and suitable Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars for being considered for promotion to the PCS (Executive Branch) from Register A-I in accordance with the provisions of the Rules against the following vacancies of the years 1978 to 1982 : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_173_LAWS(P&H)8_2003_1.html</FRM> The petitioner's name was recommended by Deputy Commissioner, Ropar and other higher authorities. Similarly, the Deputy Commissioners of other districts recommended the names of suitable candidates of their respective districts. After processing the names of candidates recommended by the Deputy Commissioners the State Government forwarded the same to Punjab Public Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission'). Similarly, the lists of candidates recommended by different authorities for appointment to PCS (Executive Branch) from registers A-II, A-III and C were forwarded to the Commission. On 5.11.1984, the Commission prepared lists of candidates found suitable for appointment against the vacancies of different registers and forwarded the same to the State Government. The names of the selected candidates were entered in the respective registers on 13.11.1984 in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules. However, they were appointed on different dates, as is evident from the statement given below : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_173_LAWS(P&H)8_2003_2.html</FRM> The appointment of the petitioner and other candidates selected against the vacancies earmarked for register A-I were delayed on account of stay order dated 18.10.1984 passed by the High Court in C.W.P. No. 4730 of 1984 Tek Chand and another Vs. State of Punjab and others. The grievance made by Tek Singh and another was that even though the names of Sarvshri Bhagwant Singh, Amarjit Singh and Shardool Singh had been forwarded to the Commission despite delayed receipt of the recommendations made by the concerned authorities their names were not sent to the Commission. The High court allowed the process of selection to continue but directed that no appointment be made from Register A-I. In the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab gave an undertaking that names of the petitioners will be sent to the Commission and in case they are selected, their inter se seniority shall be determined afresh. In view of his statement, counsel for the petitioners prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed by the court on 7.12.1984 by passing the following order:-

(3.) Respondents No. 1 to 3 have invoked Sec. 19 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 (for short, the 1898 Act) to defend the government's decision to revise the seniority list finalised vide order dated 12.3.1988, According to them, the State Government has the inherent power to amend, revise or modify the seniority list and no illegality was committed by revising the seniority list on the basis of representations made by the aggrieved officers. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, it has been averred that seniority of the members of service is governed by Rule 21 of the Rules, which prescribes the date of order of appointment and not the sequence of appointment as the criteria for determination of seniority. They have also objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the offences likely to be affected by quashing order dated 18/19.3.1993 have not been impleaded as party respondents. On merits, it has been averred that the petitioner was selected for appointment to PCS (Executive Branch) against one of the two vacancies of 1981 and respondents No. 4 and 5 were recommended for appointment against the left over vacancies for the year 1978. Their candidature were considered for appointment to PCS (Executive Branch) in view of the undertaking given by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab in CWP No. 4730 of 1984. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have denied the allegation of mala fides levelled by the petitioner in relation to the appointment of the candidates selected against the vacancies earmarked for Register A-II. In paragraph 10 of the written statement, they have given the details of such candidates and averred that posting of some of them in Civil Secretariat had no bearing on the date of their appointment to PCS (Executive Branch).