Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) Briefly, the fact are that the petitioner was selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), in the Punjab Civil Medical Service, Class II and was appointed in the service on April 27, 1975. After serving for about two years he was confirmed on June 26, 1957. He was appointed as Senior Lecturer In the department of Ophthalmology, in the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) under the orders of the Secretary to Government Punjab, Medical & Health Department dated Feb. 25, 1964.
(2.) In 1964, the Commission advertised certain posts for the direct recruitment to P. C. M S. Class I. The petitioner applied for the post on Aug. 8, 1964 through proper channel. He was selected and was placed at No. 5 in order of merit. He received a letter of appointment dated Jan. 7, 1965 from the Secretary to Government Punjab respondent No 1. informing him that he had been appointed as Officiating Senior Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Sangrur in the cadre of P C M S -I, He, after receiving the totter, wrote to the Director of the Institute to relieve him so that he could join at Sangrur. The latter, in spite of his repeated reminders, did not relieve him.
(3.) After waiting for a considerable time, Respondent No. i cancelled the offer of appointment of the petitioner at Sangrur vide order dated Aug. 9, 1965. The petitioner requested respondent No.1 that he was not at fault. As a consequence of his representation he was once again appointed as Senior Medical Officer Civil Hospital, Sangrur vide memo dated Jan. 21,1966 He again requested the Director of the Institute, respondent No 3 to retrieve him immediately. On Feb. 8, 1966, respondent No. 3 wrote to the Head of Ophthalmology Department that the matter of relieving the petitioner was under consideration and when decided it would be communicated to him but it is alleged, he was never relieved by respondent No. 3. The result was that respondent No. 1 again cancelled the appointment vide letter dated April 28, 1966. It is alleged that the petitioner made all possible efforts to join the new post but respondent No 3 did not allow him to do so It was under the aforesaid circumstances that respondents Nos. 4 to 13 were appointed as P. C. M. S. I by promotion or by selection and became senior to the petitioner. He was promoted to P. C. M. S. I on Aug. 9, 1967 on the basis of his original seniority in P. C. M S II.;