UNION OF INDIA Vs. P C BAHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two connected Appeals Nos. L. P. A. 427 of 1967 and L. P. A. 1 of 1968 on behalf f the Union of India and others and Sunder 'singh and others respectively are under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and are directed against the judgment of tek Chand, J. , dated the 20th October, 1967. By said order the learned Single judge had allowed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by P. C. Bahl, respondent No. 1 and granted him a writ of mandamus directing the appellants in L. P. A. No. 427 of 1967, to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with the judgment under appeal. As the points of facts and law arising in the two appeals are identical they will be disposed of by a single judgment.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition by P. C. Bahl, respondent no. 1 in both the petitioners may now be surveyed. Respondent No. 1 is a member of the Punjab State Civil Service and he was confirmed therein on the 1st of June, 1948. From the said date he has been working in different capacities in several departments of the State for Punjab and at the time of filing of the writ petition he held the status of a Deputy Secretary. On the 1st of November, 1956, which was the appointed date under the Reorganization Act, 1956, a joint seniority list was prepared giving the relative place of seniority of each one of the members of the punjab Civil Service. In the said list which was annexed as Annexure 'a' to the petition, respondent No. 1 was shown at serial No. 59. It is pleaded that this list forms the basis of seniority for all future promotions, appointments and confirmations for the purposes of selection or promotion to higher posts.

(3.) THE contention of respondent No. 1 was that n having completed 8 years of service in the State Civil Service he was eligible for and was considered by the committee for inclusion in the list prepared under Regulation 5 of the Indian administrative service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, for the first time in the year 1958. However, it had been averred on behalf of the Union of india that respondent No. 1, P. C. Bahl's name was placed before the committee for the first time in March, 1956, but he was not considered fit for inclusion in the select list. His name was also considered in subsequent meetings held in July, 1957, February, 1958, September, 1958, and December, 1959, but he was not considered fit for inclusion in the Select List by these Committee and was superseded in the Select List prepared in September, 1958, and December, 1959. His name was included in the Select List by the Committee which met on the 21st of January, 1961, and the same was continued in the Select List prepared on the 27th of January, 1962, 23rdof November, 1962 and the 30th of September, 1963. Respondent No. 1 had pleaded that though his name had figured in the list but it did not appear in the order of seniority in which his name had stood in the State civil Service List mentioned above. His name had been placed below the officers who had been selected in 1958 and 1959 although he pleaded that their names in the said Seniority of respondent No. 1. Subsequently till the year 1965 more names were added to the list was arranged in accordance with the order in which a particular officer was selected and according to respondent No. 1 it was in violation of Regulation 5 (3) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955.