JOGINDER SINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE had heard these two cross petitions being C. W. P. Nos. 1052 of 1976 and 2317 of 1986, some time back and had reserved judgment. Having pondered over the matter all this while, we have decided to remit these cases back for decision by the Division Bench for reasons mentioned hereafter.

(2.) THE parties in these two petitions were all clerks working as such in the respective offices of the Financial Commissioner of Punjab and the Financial Commissioner of Pepsu (Patiala and East Punjab States Union ). On the merger of Pepsu and Punjab with effect from November 1, 1956, under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, their services were integrated. Prior to such integration, the conditions of service of the Punjab clerks were governed by the rules called the Financial Commissioner (Punjab) Subordinate Service Rules, 1943 and the conditions of service of the Pepsu clerks were governed by the rules called the Pepsu Secretariat Service, Recruitment, Promotion, Punishment and Seniority Rules. 1952. Both these rules had made diverse provisions for filling by promotion from amongst the clerks the posts of assistants as also of stenographers. In neither of these rules was a departmental test a condition precedent for promotion from the post of clerk to that of am assistant or stenographer. Clerks who stood appointed prior to November 1, 1959, form one group. Clerks who ware appointed thereafter till February 28, 1957, form a second group On this date the Governor of Punjab under Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed Punjab Financial Commissioner's Office (State Service) (Class III) Rules, 1957, whereunder such a departmental test was prescribed. The clerks appointed thereafter under the aforesaid rules from February 28, 1957 onwards form a third group

(3.) UNDER Rules ( (f) and 7 (l) (e) (i) of the 1957 Rules a Clerk could be promoted to the post of an assistant if he had adequate knowledge of the relevant rules and had qualified in the departmental test prescribed for promotion to that post A clerk till he had qualified in the departmental test prescribed for the purpose could not become eligible for promotion. It was the conceded case of the parties that in compliance of the 1957 Rules, periodic departmental tests for the purpose took place as regulated by some departmental instructions where under six chances were given to each clerk to pass such test and in case of his failure to do so, after lapse of some time, another six chances were again given to him. It is also the admitted case of the parties that all of them passed departmental tests at one time or the other and did become assistants. The dispute herein is how to settle their promotional seniority Inter se, when statedly the Rules could not prescribe such a departmental test.