RUMA PAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred from the decision of the High Court setting aside the appointment of the appellant as a chick sexer in the Department of Animal Husbandry of the Government of Punjab.
(2.) THE appellant's case is that he was appointed as a Bird Attendant/Hatchery Man in the Department on 24/11/1981. In 1983, the appellant successfully underwent training as a chick sexer with the Central Hatchery, Chengannur, Kerala. After completing his training, he discharged the duties of a chick sexer and was appointed as chick sexer at various places within the State. For example, one order dated 3-7-86 from the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Poultry Development to the Assistant Director states :- "Regarding the aforesaid subject, the duty of chick sexer for the work of Hatchery is as under :- JUDGEMENT_646_JT9_2001Html1.htm It is clarified here that on the day of chick sexing no chick sexer should be given any leave. In case chick sexer has to take leave under compelling circumstances they should be appointed. (sic)." In 1980, instructions were issued by the Government laying down qualifications for appointment to the post of chick sexer. These qualifications were: a) B.A./B.S.C. (Academic) b) Five weeks Chick Sexing Training of any recognised Govt. Institution in India or abroad. Preference : Six months Poultry Training Course at the Govt. Training Institute at Chandigarh. c) Punjab up to Matric standard. OR a) Matric with three months Poultry Training Course from Government Training Institute/Stock Assistant Course from College of veterinary Medicine, Hissar/Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana; b) Chick Sexing training at any recognised Government Training Institute in India or abroad. c) Five years experience in any Government Poultry Farm. d) Two years experience in Chick Sexing. e) Punjab upto Matric Standard." According to the appellant, he fulfilled these norms and was entitled to be promoted to the post of chick sexer.
(3.) THE appellant filed a suit in 1989 against the State Government Authorities claiming to be paid the same scale of pay as chick sexers. THE suit was dismissed in 1993. THE appellant preferred an appeal. THE only relief asked for by the appellant before the Appellate Court was that the Department might be directed to consider i) whether the appellant had been working as a chick sexer; ii) and was entitled to pay and other benefits. THE State Authorities had no objection to such an order being passed. THE order of the Additional District Judge accordingly was :- "....the department is ordered to consider the fact as to whether the plaintiff was working as chick sexer and if so his request for other benefits may also be considered according to Law." In the meanwhile, one Gobind Singh (whose case was substantially similar to the appellant's case) also filed a suit. The suit ultimately culminated in an order passed by the High Court in Second Appeal by which the High Court directed that since Gobind Singh had been discharging the duties of a chick sexer, he was entitled to get the pay and allowances of that post. The State Authorities did not challenge this decision and appointed Gobind Singh as a chick sexer.;